CONSOLIDATED MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP OF THE ATEX DIRECTIVES 94/9/EC AND 2014/34/EU COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2018) /02/2018 CONSOLIDATED MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE WORKING GROUP OF THE ATEX DIRECTIVES 94/9/EC AND 2014/34/EU COMMITTEE This document includes the consolidated minutes of the meetings held from October 1997 until July 2017 (36 meetings). Please note that this document is published on the ATEX website on EUROPA for information purpose only. I October 1997 II June 1998 III. 1 December 1998 IV. 8-9 June 1999 V. 9 March 2000 VI. 8 December 2000 VII June 2001 VIII. 27 March 2002 IX. 6-7 February 2003 X. 4 December 2003 XI. 8 July 2004 XII. 2 December 2004 XIII. 30 June 2005 XIV. 1 December 2005 XV. 29 June 2006 XVI. 30 November 2006 XVII. 10 July 2007 XVIII. 22 November 2007 XIX. 25 June 2008 XX. 23 January 2009 XXI. 22 June 2009 XXII. 16 December 2009 XXIII. 7 July 2010 XXIV. 21 January 2011 XXV. 1 July 2011 XXVI. 21 February 2012 XXVII. 12 July 2012 XXVIII. 19 February 2013 XXIX. 10 July 2013 XXX. 26 February 2014 XXXI. 8 July 2014 XXXII. 17 February 2015 XXXIII. 1 October 2015 XXXIV. 18 February 2016 XXXV. 5 July 2016 XXXVI. 11 July 2017

2 I OCTOBER 1997 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL III INDUSTRY Industrial affairs II: Capital goods industries Mechanical engineering and electrical engineering ATEX Standing Committee Meeting October 1997 MINUTES Opening of the meeting and approval of the draft agenda The Chairman opened the meeting. He reminded that the main task of the Standing Committee is to deliver opinions to the Commission on measures to be taken within the framework of the ATEX Directive as well as to be a forum for discussion of issues related to the directive. The Spanish delegate expressed his dissatisfaction with the overlapping of the ATEX Committee meeting with another meeting, related to the Machinery Directive. He also complained about the late arrival of working documents and proposed to use other ways of distribution in the future, namely and fax. The Commission welcomed the Spanish proposals and explained that accepting to hold the two meetings in parallel has been necessary in order to avoid a postponement of the ATEX meeting to next year. and fax will be used for the future distribution of documents as far as it is possible. Due to the late receipt of the documents the German delegate expressed that his statements related to the working documents could only be seen as reservedly. The French delegation asked for an amendment of the agenda in order to discuss the interpretation of Article 8.5 of the ATEX Directive (placing on the market and putting into service without application of the conformity assessment procedures foreseen in the ATEX directive). Discussion of the draft Rules of Procedure The Commission reminded the mandate and nature of the Standing Committee, set in by article 6 paragraphs 3 and 4 of directive 94/9/EC, the role of which is to deliver opinions on the draft measures envisaged by the Commission in order to ensure a uniform application of the ATEX Directive. The Commission explained that the draft presented was based on the draft Rules of Procedure for the Machines Directive Committee and had been checked by the Legal Service.

3 I OCTOBER 1997 The draft Rules of Procedure for the ATEX Standing Committee were presented article by article. Some modifications and amendments to this text were proposed. It was concluded that in the light of the discussion the Commission will elaborate a revised draft, which will be sent to the Member States in order to be examined eventually with the assistance of the legal experts. The Commission expects the Member States comments within 6 weeks from reception of the revised draft in order to get a complete picture of the different positions. A final draft will be prepared taking into account the comments received and will be translated in all Community languages. The formal approval of the Rules of Procedure is intended to take place in the next meeting of the Standing Committee. The Commission noted that the ATEX Standing Committee is in fact an Advisory Committee according to article 2 of Council Decision of 13. July 1987 (87/373/EEC) laying down the Comitology rules. According to this decision and in relation with article 148 of the EEC Treaty the voting procedure requires a quorum of 8 Member States for the validity of deliberations and opinions might be adopted by simple majority. In addition the Commission representative pointed out that in the absence of a specific reference to voting procedures in that decision for this type of Committee, the rules of the Treaty were to apply, implying that it is impossible to take up regulations in the Rules of Procedure deviating from the Treaty. The general idea of an Advisory Committee is to be a forum for discussion instead of voting formally on every single subject. Guidelines on the application of the ATEX Directive (Guidelines) The Commission representative presented as background for discussion the policy on the publication of guidelines for the New Approach directives and described the approach and characteristics of other guides as the Blue guide, the EMC guide and the LVD guide. In view of the experience with the drafting of guides the Commission mentioned the possibility of establishing a Steering Group for this guide, reporting to the Standing Committee. If necessary, the Commission could consider the possibility of having the Steering Group assisted by a specialised consultant. The need and characteristics of a possible ATEX guide were discussed. The UK made the following proposals for the content of the guide: Seven broad areas should be clarified: a) Scope of the Directive, including the coverage of the Directive, its relationship with other Directives and specific exclusions; b) Conformity Assessment Procedures, including methods of complying with the Directive, how to show the essential health and safety requirements are satisfied, definitions of various procedures and options available to manufacturers and to their authorised representatives established in the Community; c) Notified Bodies, including general interpretation of criteria for appointment, their relationship with national authorities, information on their activity and co-ordination; d) Market Surveillance of the Directive, use of the safeguard clause, informal procedures; e) Standardisation; 3

4 I OCTOBER 1997 f) Common approach adopted by Member States in the interpretation of linguistic divergence and areas where clarification is required; g) Contact List for information/ publications. In the opinion of the United Kingdom the best mechanism for developing the guidance would be via a Steering Group. The French and German delegations agreed with the UK approach. The German delegate stated that in his view an ATEX guide should mirror the work of the Standing Committee. For ORGALIME guidelines are essential in order to have a uniform application of the Directive. The guide should be a living document with the possibility to be revised if necessary. Also the Italian delegate considered the guidelines as necessary, they should cover technical as well as administrative problems. The Spanish delegate expressed the interest in a document addressed as well to the national administrations as to the concerned sectors. He proposed to follow the line of the Machinery Directive guidelines when drafting the ATEX guide. He suggested a modular approach which is flexible and can be modified easily e.g. according to changes of the legal background. The guide should also contain additional information like lists of the Notified Bodies, the harmonised standards related to the directive, the European associations, references to the transpositions of the directive in the Member States, etc. Spain and Austria proposed a question & answer approach. The content could be organised in the order of the essential requirements. The Commission representative from Unit III.B.4, responsible for horizontal questions concerning the New Approach, announced that a new edition of the blue guide is in preparation at the moment and is expected to be published at the beginning of This horizontal guide will for example contain explanations of the interpretation of the essential requirements, the conformity assessment procedures, the selection of Notified Bodies, the treatment of safeguard clauses and market surveillance. Austria considered the UK proposal as a good basis for discussion. The delegate suggested to postpone the work on the items mentioned by the III.B.4 representative until the second edition of the blue guide is issued, to see which subjects are already sufficiently treated and which subjects still need further explanation. The German delegate supported, in principle, the UK proposal. In addition he suggested to include the basic questions coming from ExNB group in the document. The chairman of the ExNB-group suggested to create a guide orientated to practical use and addressed not only to administrations but also to the notified bodies. The Austrian delegate pointed out that the Steering Committee should not take on board the duties of ExNB. The Commission proposed that the input from the Notified Bodies could be obtained via the ExNB-group and that the Chairman of this group should act as a link with the Steering Group. The Commission reminded that previous guidelines had been based on a consensus between Member States. It was not necessary and not intended to give a legal status to these guidelines. 4

5 I OCTOBER 1997 The question of language divergence between the different versions of the ATEX Directive was raised by the German delegate. He considered that the guide could tackle this issue, although he favours a correction published in the Official Journal. The Commission can agree to this proposed solution if Member States can agree on a common opinion. The creation of a Steering Group composed of Member States, manufacturers and Notifies Bodies was also supported by the French delegation. A precise deadline should be given to deliver an embryonic version of the guidelines to the Standing Committee. Concerning the composition of the Steering Group the Commission considered the input from experts as necessary, therefore the Group should be able to invite also non-governmental experts. To summarise the discussion, the Commission concluded that all Member States expressed their wishes on having a guide for the application of the ATEX directive. This guide has to be flexible enough to be updated in the light of further experience and development, which leads to a modular approach. The guide will deal with specific issues of the ATEX directive (e.g. scope). General and horizontal issues will be covered by the revised Blue Guide in a uniform manner in order to avoid problems in case several directives have to be applied at the same time. The guide will not have legal status but will reflect consensus between the Member States. Beside the Member States the Notified Bodies, industry and the standardisation bodies will also have an input to the guide which could also include an inventory of questions and answers. The Commission services will send an invitation to all the delegations inviting them to participate, on a voluntary basis, in a first meeting of the Steering Group. Two of such meetings could be foreseen in advance of each meeting of the Standing Committee in the year Co-operation between Notified Bodies The Commission explained the horizontal policy adapted for the co-ordination of notified bodies and described the role of the administrative and technical secretariats. The Chairman of ExNB group will be invited to participate in the meetings of the Standing Committee in particular in order to report on co-ordination activities. The chairman of the ExNB group (Mr. Brenon of LCIE, France) explained the results of the first meeting of ExNB, which took place on 17 and 18 June 1997 in Brussels. It had been agreed to use as working language English, while all final documents will be prepared in English, German and French. On request of the UK delegate the ExNB chairman explained that the rules of procedure are still on a draft stage but will be circulated as soon as they are finalised. The Commission agreed to distribute the minutes of the ExNB group as requested. UK expressed its surprise at the fact that some decisions have already been taken by the ExNB group at a stage where the rules of procedure aren t finalised. The ExNB chairman stressed the fact that the group doesn t seek to work independently from the other relevant working groups. He explained that ExNB group intends to elaborate mini-guides and clarification-sheets for its internal use. The German delegate wondered whether other forms of exchange of information with the Notified Bodies were also possible, for instance if some members of the Standing Committee could participate in the meetings of ExNB. UK supported this proposal. The ExNB chairman welcomed a representative from the Standing Committee, but stressed the fact that the group shouldn t receive undue external pressure. 5

6 I OCTOBER 1997 On the other hand the ExNB chairman and the French delegate raised the question whether ORGALIME could be considered as representative for manufacturers of equipment intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The ORGALIME representative explained that ORGALIME is a federation of trade associations of the mechanical and electrical industry. At the moment ORGALIME is undergoing an internal restructuring in order to create a specific representation and co-ordination group for the ATEX sector. The Commission asked ORGALIME to prepare a document explaining this process and the composition of this group in order to allow an assessment of how far all the relevant national associations are represented. The German delegate stressed the important role of standards. He expressed his worries about application of the standards based on certain clarification sheets produced by the ExNB group. To his opinion the Standing Committee should check these documents. The Commission reminded the German delegate that the Standing Committee should stick to the approach set up by the ATEX Directive. Therefore, the Standing Committee should not play the role reserved to the standardisation bodies but would have a say in ensuring that the parties (e.g. Notified Bodies, Standardisation Bodies, etc.) fulfil their tasks and stick to their respective roles. The CENELEC representative invited all Ex-laboratories if they detect a shortcoming in the standards to communicate this fact to CENELEC for discussion. This was agreed by the ExNB chairman, but he remarked that the great amount of time taken by CENELEC to make a decision could block some important files. The ExNB chairman ended his presentation with a description of future tasks and developments of this group. He agreed on sending a report of the work of the ExNB-group to the members of the Standing Committee. Appointing of Notified Bodies by the Member States In order to exchange information about the status of the assessment and notification of Bodies, Member States were asked to present their progress in this area. Summary information was provided by the Member States of the number of bodies notified in their countries, the criteria for notification, and additional requests of testing laboratories for notification. It was agreed by all delegates to send short explanations of the accreditation procedures to DG III.D.1. The Commission will send these documents together with the working documents for the next meeting of the Standing Committee. The chairman of the meeting supported by a representative of DG III.B.4, responsible for horizontal questions concerning certification under the New Approach, explained the general principles to notification. The Commission representative from III.B.4 explained the Commission s view concerning the appointing of Notified Bodies. Member States have the responsibility of assuring the competence of the bodies they notify. To this effect, EN ff. (especially 45001, 45004, 45011, 45012) are a very useful basis for evaluation but not always sufficient. The requirements of the ATEX directive itself have in any case to be taken into consideration. To ensure a consistent notification approach close communication between all national accreditation services is necessary. In any case competition between the body to be notified and the accreditation service has to be avoided. The 6

7 I OCTOBER 1997 responsibility of the Member States for notification implies that Member States are always well informed about the accreditation procedure. The ExNB chairman reported about the difficulties his company has met in order to become a Notified Body, in particular about certain problems with the accreditation process. He expressed his opinion that EN 45000ff are sometimes applied in a different way in different Member States. This might in some cases increase the costs for Notified Bodies, which could be considered as a distortion of the market. Status of implementation of Directive 94/9 Up to now the directive has been implemented in nearly all Member States except Belgium, Ireland and Italy. The Belgian delegate explained that the Directive is now on the last stage of transposition, but it was impossible to estimate the precise date of full adoption. The Italian delegate informed that the Directive is under consideration in the State Council, and that he expects it to become Italian law at the beginning of Ireland was not represented in the meeting. In order to get an overview about the actual application of the New Approach ATEX directive in relation to the use of the Old Approach directives for explosive atmospheres the representative of ORGALIME and the ExNB chairman were asked to report about their experiences. ORGALIME informed that the application of directive 94/9 is still in the initial stage. One of the main reasons is that harmonised standards aren t yet published under this directive. Certain manufacturers are using the second edition of standards, which are published under the Old Approach directives in order to facilitate the certification procedure. For the time being it is impossible for ORGALIME to estimate the percentage of production in the ATEX sector using directive 94/9. The Commission asked if more precise information could be expected in the future. The ExNB chairman informed that a certificate format is ready since one year ago. The Notified Bodies don t have special difficulties with the conformity assessment procedures except in cases of a shortcoming in the standards. The ExNB chairman expressed his view that the transition process in certification from Old to New Approach is rather slow. A factor that could accelerate the process is the publication of standards under directive 94/9. The chairman considered that it is not difficult for Notified Bodies to issue an EC-type certificate. More problematic is the quality control part, which industry perceives as an element which increases the costs. For the time being no statistics are available about the issuing of certificates. Progress on standardisation The Commission underlined that standardisation is very important for the application of the ATEX Directive 94/9. Therefore representatives of the standardisation bodies and chairmen of the concerned Technical Committees (TC 31 for CENELEC, TC 305 for CEN) have been invited to report about the progress in their work. 7

8 I OCTOBER 1997 The participants were informed that the third editions of the standards 50014ff will be available from January Referring to the problem expressed by ORGALIME, the TC 31 chairman, Mrs Cessac, expressed her intention to raise this point in the next meeting of TC 31, in which the delegations will be asked to report problems with certification. The Commission asked how many standards could be expected in the near future. The TC 31 chairman replied that standard (general requirements) is already available. The standards for protection modes o and q will be available very soon, the standards for protection modes d and i can be expected for mid Concerning the measuring standards 50054ff the TC 31 chairman informed that they had been ratified at CENELEC s TB and will be finalised by the secretariat. The Commission regretted the absence of a CEN representative, and asked Mrs Cessac to report her information on standardisation progress in the mechanical field on basis of the distributed document. The Austrian, French and German delegates expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that CEN didn t sent a representative to this Standing Committee. The Commission announced to contact CEN requesting explanation and asking them to participate in the next meeting. Status of the 118a ATEX directive The Commission explained that a proposal for a Council directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres had been drafted by DG V in Luxembourg. This proposal had received a positive opinion from the Economic and Social Committee on its 333rd meeting on 28 and 29 February The first reading in the European Parliament resulted in a number of amendments, the majority of which has been taken over. On the 11 April 1997 the amended proposal has been presented to the Council according to article 189a of the Treaty and was published in the Official Journal No C 184 of It is now for the Council-Presidency to include the proposal on the Council agenda in order to finalise and adopt it. Questions concerning application and interpretation of the directive and the conformity assessment procedures The Commission presented two documents, one containing questions presented by the Member States authorities and the other one proposing answers which had been elaborated by the Commission with the help of an ATEX think tank. The second document contains a table which could be used as a help for checking if an apparatus, equipment or safety device is within the scope of the Directive. The French delegate expressed the opinion that this table could help solving 95% of the interpretation problems. The other 5% should in his view be addressed to the Steering Group. All delegations welcomed the Commission s efforts to solve the interpretation problems. On most items the Committee agreed on the proposed answers. 8

9 I OCTOBER 1997 The Chairman asked the Member States to introduce their particular questions, and then invited the participants to discuss the proposed answers. The first question, proposed by Sweden, gave rise to a discussion about the exact definition of atmospheric conditions. The Commission proposed that this issue would be addressed to the Steering Group for elaborating the Guidelines. Question 6, concerning mobile oil- and gas-platforms lead to a discussion with diverging opinions. The Commission proposed to tackle this problem as well as the definitions of question 9 of the working document within the Steering Committee. These aspects of general interest should be included in the future guidelines. The Spanish delegate reminded that in case of problems with the application of the directive, the responsibility could not be left to CEN / CENELEC, but rather they should be solved in the framework of the Standing Committee. The German delegate, supported by UK, asked the ExNB chairman to provide a list of the important application problems detected by the Notified Bodies in advance of the next meeting of the Standing Committee. This would allow the national experts to discuss the questions internally and to propose appropriate answers. The ExNB chairman agreed on this mode of proceeding. Commission Directive adapting to technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC The Chairman announced that the Commission had finally adopted on and published in the EC Official Journal on , Commission Directive 97/53/EC (adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 79/196/EEC). The Commission had previously confirmed, on the basis of the opinion of its Legal Service, by letter dated (n 15703) to all Permanent Representations, the legal compatibility of the Commission Directive in question with the provisions of article 15(2) of Council Directive 94/9/EC. With the same letter the Commission had communicated its intention to adopt the Directive, following the favourable opinion on it expressed on , at the qualified majority, by the Committee on the Adaptation to Technical Progress of the Directives for the Elimination of Technical Barriers in the Sector of Electrical Equipment for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres. That favourable opinion had been given by the Committee under reservation of an official confirmation by the Commission about the legal interpretation concerning the compatibility issue mentioned above. The draft Directive had been attached to the letter. The Spanish delegate expressed his dissatisfaction with the procedure which had led to the adoption of the Directive. In his view, the letter of the Commission dated was the start of a written procedure of voting. The period for sending the letter was not appropriate because of the summer holidays. No minutes had been provided of the meeting and therefore he was not sure that his position had properly been taken into account. He considered that the opinion of the Commission Legal Service should have been provided to the Member States for examination.he had not been in a position to vote neither in favour nor against the draft Directive at the meeting, because of the legal uncertainty on the compatibility issue. He considered that the Directive could create problems by unduly restricting the possible use of the previous version of the standards covered by the adaptation to technical progress. In his view that was a matter of principle. The Chairman stated that the content of the Commission letter of showed clearly that a written procedure had not been intended. The letter mentioned the favourable opinion given by the Committee, under the condition recalled before which had been fulfilled. A favourable vote by 9

10 I OCTOBER 1997 Spain had not been determinant to reach the qualified majority. It was not a usual practice to provide internal notes of the Legal Service in such cases and an official letter signed by the Director General of the competent DG was the appropriate approach. The letter had been sent as soon as possible after clarifying internally the issue, in order not to delay an overdue adaptation. Summer holidays are spread over several months in the EU-15 and it would not be feasible to block all business for such a long period. Moreover, the Directive had only been adopted on and the Commission had not received complaints from Spain in the initial period of September either. No other Member State had the same problems as Spain neither on the procedure nor on the substance of the issue. The issue of compatibility had been sufficiently clarified. Industry had not asked for a different approach, therefore the problem was quite hypothetical in any case. Finally, following the approach consisting in extending to 2003 the deadline for delivering valid certificates with reference to the previous versions of the standards considered, would not solve at all any such eventual principle problem, due to the previous adaptation to technical progress (Directive 94/26/EC) which included similar provisions, was adopted under the same regime, and even after the new amendment would still deprive manufacturers from the option of using the original version of the standards. The Commission regretted the misunderstanding and offered to Spain any useful bilateral clarification and assistance in particular should real difficulties arise. Demarcation between different directives The UK introduced the issue of application of the ATEX directive in parallel with certain other directives in particular in the case of safety devices and warning devices. It was explained that, if a product is within the scope of two directives at the same time, both directives have to be applied in parallel. In case of the ATEX and the EMC directives, the ATEX directive has to be applied to fulfil the requirements concerning explosive atmospheres safety requirements and in addition the EMC directive must also be applied to fulfil the requirements on electromagnetic compatibility. However equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres is explicitly excluded from the scope of the Low Voltage Directive. All LVD-requirements have to be covered by the ATEX- Directive (Annex II ATEX). Not excluded from the scope of the LVD are the devices mentioned in article 1(2) of the ATEX directive which are intended for use outside potentially explosive atmospheres but required for or contributing to the safe functioning of equipment and protective systems. In this case again both directives have to be applied at the same time. The relation between the ATEX and the Machinery directives is different. The ATEX Directive is an additional directive to the Machinery Directive and contains very specific and detailed requirements to avoid hazards due to potentially explosive atmospheres, while the Machinery Directive itself contains only very general requirements (Annex I, Machinery Directive) against explosions. Concerning explosive hazards the ATEX Directive takes precedence and has to be applied. For all other risks in the use of a machine, the requirements of the Machinery Directive have to be applied in addition. The Commission reminded that a Notified Body could cover the aspects related to two directives only if the Body is notified under both directives. The question of demarcation between the directives was proposed to be one item included in the ATEX-guideline. 10

11 I OCTOBER 1997 Linguistic divergence The Commission presented the document provided by the UK and explained that not all the divergence identified could be considered equally important; only the major ones should be considered by the Committee. The UK delegation and the other participants agreed on this fact and expressed their intention in identifying the divergence which may cause the most difficulties. It was agreed by all participants to postpone the discussion until the next meeting. The Spanish delegate regretted that his document was not legible. He was promised to receive another copy from the Commission. Miscellaneous: Interpretation of Article 8(5) The French delegate drew the attention of the Committee to Article 8(5) of directive 94/9/EC, which could in his view be abusively used to distort the appliance of the directive and have a negative impact on fair competition. France expressed its concerns about the fact that there are no clear limits and no defined way of application. The Commission stated that whereas this article does not contain specific detailed criteria it must be considered as a derogation which has to be justified by exceptional situations. This clause may only be applied on the basis of protection needs which would be compromised by the application of the Conformity assessment procedures. Even in such cases the essential safety requirements of the directive must be complied with. Austria considered the formulation of article 8(5) must be interpreted in a very restrictive way and only to be used if any other solution appears to be impossible. The Spanish delegate expressed his opinion that such derogatory articles should be included in every regulation. Any other business No other business was discussed. The Chairman thanked all participants as well as the interpretation service and closed the meeting. The next meetings of the ATEX Standing Committee are planned to take place on 13 and 14 May 1998 and 14 and 15 October

12 II JUNE 1998 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL III INDUSTRY Industrial affairs II: Capital goods industries Mechanical engineering and electrical engineering 94/9/EC ATEX DIRECTIVE STANDING COMMITTEE Brussels, 23 and 24 June 1998 Meeting report Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda Mr Fernandez Ruiz, the new Head of Unit, and Mr Anselmann, the new Deputy Head of Unit, responsible for the ATEX directive introduced themselves to the participants. Mr Anselmann chaired the meeting. He welcomed all participants and opened the meeting. The draft agenda was approved. Rules of Procedure The Commission explained that following concerns expressed by the UK at the previous meeting the Rules of Procedure had been re-drafted to show that the Committee would operate by simple majority. The Spanish delegate requested that the text be further amended to make it even clearer that the intention is for eight votes to be received (of the fifteen) before a positive outcome is recorded. This was agreed. A revised text will show that the Committee will operate by a majority of its Members. The Commission explained that it would still have to place a reserve on the proposal until it had been cleared by its own legal services. If accepted this would then be translated into all languages and sent to the delegates prior to formal adoption. Report on enlargement activities Mr Mattinò from DG III.B.4 reported on recent developments concerning the enlargement of the EU Mutual Recognition Agreements. Regarding the European Conformity Assessment Protocols with Hungary and the Czech Republic, Mr Mattinò informed that the ATEX sector seemed to be ripe to be included as an annex only in the case of the Czech Republic.

13 II JUNE 1998 ORGALIME expressed its concerns about eventual barriers to trade in Hungary and the Czech Republic. One of the purposes of these Protocols, Mr Mattinò clarified, is actually to eliminate these barriers during the transitional period before accession. The CEN delegate noted that there had already been over twenty years of co-operation in the field of standardisation which should help easing the process of integration especially in this kind of technical legislation. It was agreed that the Commission would distribute the following background documents: Implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements on Conformity Assessment (MRA) and Protocol on European Conformity Assessment (PECA) [Certif.98/7-EN; ]; Procedure for designation of Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) under Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with Non-Member countries [Certif. 96/3-rev EN; ]; The transitional periods in the context of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with third countries [ ]. The Chairman proposed to invite delegates from the candidate countries to participate in the next meetings of the Committee. Guidelines on the application of directive 94/9/EC The Commission reported that the Steering Group had met three times. The UK, Germany, France, Austria, CEN/CENELEC, ORGALIME and the ExNB chairman had participated on a regular basis, with Sweden attending once, although all members of the Standing Committee had been invited. The Commission reported on the work of the Steering Group. Good progress had been made in particular the agreement of a common text and the identification of linguistic divergences. The Commission asked for comments to the first draft of the ATEX Guidelines prepared by this group. A detailed discussion of the draft Guide then took place. The Commission asked all Member States if the common position agreed by the Steering Group on the language differences so far identified was acceptable. Following a nil response they proposed that a formal Corrigendum be prepared prior to further discussion and presentation to the Council with the final objective of its publication in the OJEC. Member States could then amend their national regulations in line with the common text. The UK invited the Commission and other Members to attend the next Steering Group in London on the 15/16 July. This meeting will consider the detailed points raised by Member States. Participants were invited to send detailed proposals concerning their comments to the Steering Group. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Chairman Mr Brenon outlined the work undertaken by the Ex Notified Bodies Group. Mr Brenon explained that the group has approved its rules of procedure and has taken a number of decisions in relation to meetings held in previous years. The last meeting of 15/16 June had seen a total of 13 13

14 II JUNE 1998 agreements on technical issues with a further 3 still under discussion. In addition, a Quality Assessment Schedule (QAS) had been adopted by the ExNB for immediate implementation. In relation to the QAS, the UK delegate expressed his concerns although the document may contain a number of useful aspects on various issues. It has to be considered that many of the points covered would in principle be equally applicable to conformity assessment under any other Directive. The UK delegate concluded that although the ExNB Group may in principle be free to create such a document until notifying authorities were involved and agreed to the text, they were not obliged to accept its implementation. The Commission supported the UK view and expressed its view that this document requires consideration by the ATEX Standing Committee. Although it may be termed as best practice the ExNB should not take a unilateral decision on these issues before the Standing Committee had considered the proposal. However, it was accepted that the harmonisation of Notified Bodies practices is necessary and as such the paper would be considered by the Standing Committee at its next meeting. ORGALIME also supported this view, stressing the need for manufacturers to be fully involved in the process rather than their inclusion as observers only at ExNB meetings. The ExNB group had provided a list of questions for consideration. These are to be discussed at the next Steering Group. Status of implementation of Directive 94/9/EC All Member States have at the date of the meeting transposed the Directive except Belgium and Ireland. Italy said that their domestic regulations had been amended in March. Belgium indicated that it would be necessary to start the legislation process again and that this would take it into next year. Ireland explained that a first draft had been prepared by the Health and Safety Authority and forwarded to the appropriate Department. Transposition was therefore likely within a matter of months. Progress on standardisation Ms Cessac, chairwoman of CENELEC/TC 31 reported on the standardisation work in her Committee. She informed that eight standards would be presented to the Commission for publication in the OJEC. At the request of UK, Ms Cessac agreed to provide an updated schedule for future standardisation work in TC 31. Mr O Riordan, the Commission s CEN/CENELEC coordinator, reported on TC 305 standardisation projects. Certification of Intrinsically Safe Systems The CENELEC representative asked for clarification as to whether Intrinsically Safe Systems were covered by directive 94/9/EC. 14

15 II JUNE 1998 The Commission explained that Intrinsically Safe Systems have to undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedures of the directive if they are placed on the market as a complete system and therefore to be considered as equipment or components. In case an Intrinsically Safe Systems comprises several separate products which are designed to be assembled by the user, each single product which is within the scope of the directive and placed on the market separately has to undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedures of the directive. The resulting system has to be seen as an installation and it is as such not subject of the procedures and requirements of directive 94/9/EC. This does not exclude that there might be national regulations related to the use of Intrinsically Safe Systems, which have to be applied. This explanation found general consensus although particular difficulties were considered concerning intrinsically safe products, which are then connected to make a system. Status of the 118a ATEX Directive The Commission informed that this issue will be taken forward by the Austrian Presidency. The Austrian delegate said that the relevant draft text takes into account the reservations raised and should now meet with approval by most Member States. New edition of the Blue Guide Ms Liukko from DG III.B.4 reported on the progress of the work concerning the new edition of the Guide on the Global Approach and the New Approach (Blue Guide). A further consultation on this Guide will take place in autumn, but all participants are already invited to give their comments of view on the draft Guide directly to the competent Commission service. Miscellaneous The next meeting of the Standing Committee is foreseen for the first week of December The Chairman thanked all participants for their collaboration, and closed the meeting. 15

16 III. 1 DECEMBER 1998 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL III INDUSTRY Industrial affairs II: Capital goods industries Mechanical engineering and electrical engineering 94/9/EC ATEX DIRECTIVE STANDING COMMITTEE Brussels, 1 December 1998 Meeting report Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda Mr Anselmann, Deputy Head of Unit III.D.1, opened the meeting and welcomed all participants. The draft agenda was approved. Interchange of Data between Administrations (IDA) Mr Karatsivoulis from the IDA project gave a presentation to promote and facilitate the use of telematics for the exchange of documents within the ATEX Standing Committee (see Annex II). Referring to a question from the Spanish delegation it was explained that IDA could give support only to the Committee members itself and not to authorities responsible for ATEX in the Member States. Co-operation between Notified Bodies The Chairman of the Ex Notified Bodies (ExNB) Group, Mr Brenon, reported about the work undertaken by this group. Mr Brenon explained that the group had approved its rules of procedure and had taken a number of decisions. These included the adoption of a Quality Assessment Schedule (QAS) for manufacturers operating a system compatible with the requirements of the ATEX directive. Following some concerns an ExNB working group (with industry participation) had been set in to go over the document. This working group had met once to date. The Committee discussed in detail statements on pages 8 and 38 of the ExNB document (ATEX/98/II/3) referring to the need for assessment and the responsibility of Notified Bodies in case where another organisation had already certified a manufacturer s quality system or in case where the manufacturer had already been assessed under another directive. There was absolute agreement that the full responsibility for the assessment of the quality system in accordance with the directive remains with the Notified Body. It is not possible to share this responsibility regardless of whether or not certain tasks may be carried through subcontracting. Nevertheless work already carried out by other organisations can duly be taken into account if it is provable and checkable.

17 III. 1 DECEMBER 1998 Several delegates as well as industry commented that the existing document is more prescribing a procedure then defining a standard. However, it was generally agreed that the document should be used as a basis to elaborate a harmonised standard as additional ATEX specific guidance to the existing standards of the ISO/EN 9000 series, as far as needed, in order to facilitate compliance with directive 94/9/EC. The remaining aspects of the ExNB document related to the conduct of certification procedures could be subject to Notified Bodies recommendations. The Spanish delegate welcomed this idea and emphasised that the way of elaborating standards has to be clear and open to everybody. The Commission invited ExNB to contribute to the standardisation process. The UK delegate reminded that the UK response to the QAS paper should be recognised in the further work and announced their intention to participate in the next meeting of the working group. The chairman concluded that European Standards Bodies would be approached to make sure that ATEX specific aspects relating to quality systems would be incorporated in a harmonized standard within the framework of the ATEX mandate. Mr. Brenon informed that ExNB has already agreed on six further decision sheets which take into account most of industry s concerns. In reference to the CERTIF document 94/6 Rev. 6 the Commission proposed that all mature ExNB draft recommendations be in the future disseminated to Member States representatives in the ATEX Standing Committee. According to their responsibilities Member States should take note of all ExNB recommendations. In case of disagreement from industry, Member States or Commission the Notified Bodies would have to reconsider the problem. To avoid delays in application for the Notified Bodies the recommendations can be used as interim documents before they are brought to the attention of the ATEX Standing Committee. Progress on standardisation Ms Cessac, chairwoman of CENELEC/TC 31, reported on the standardisation work in the Committee. She announced that thirteen standards would be presented to the Commission within short time for publication in the OJEC. Another two standards would be ready within the first half of the year Mr Sälzer (DIN), secretary of CEN TC 305, informed about the work progress and the standards expected to be finalised within Following a question from the Danish delegation Mr O Riordan, the Commission s CEN/CENELEC co-ordinator, agreed to check and to prepare a list of all harmonised standards under the machinery directive, which fulfil as well requirements of directive 94/9/EC. According to an explanation given by the CEN representative it is due to the explaining annexes Ia and Ib of standards perfectly possible that standards deal with the requirements of different directives at the same time. Guidelines on the application of directive 94/9/EC The Commission reported on the work of the Steering Group, which had met twice since the last Committee meeting with participation of UK, Germany, France, Austria, CEN/CENELEC, ORGALIME and the ExNB chairman. Good progress had been made; the group had discussed all 17

18 III. 1 DECEMBER 1998 received comments and has incorporated the proposals in the draft guide as far as it seemed possible. A discussion of the draft guide then took place. Following comments from Sweden and Germany it was agreed that chapters 3.7 and 8.3 should be reconsidered once more. Referring to the German comments, which had been sent by to the Commission, the German delegate agreed to send an additional letter with further explanations and proposals for amendments to clarify the German view. The Commission asked the delegates for further comments to the tabled draft of the ATEX Guidelines including an identification of the critical points. In view of the next Steering Group meeting the deadline for responses was set 18 January Austria invited the Commission and other Members to attend the next Steering Group in Vienna on the 25/26 January This meeting will prepare a final draft of the guidelines, which will afterwards be translated into French and German and will be sent out for consideration to all Member States. It is foreseen that the final discussion takes place in the forthcoming Standing Committee meeting. Following the discussion in the last Standing Committee meeting concerning language differences in the directive and based on the work of the Steering Group the Commission had prepared draft formal Corrigenda in English, French and German which were disseminated to all Member States. The UK delegate expressed his view that items 2, 3 and 8 of the English Corrigendum would need further consideration. It was agreed that this would be done by the Steering Group prior to sending all documents to the Council with the final objective of publishing the Corrigenda in the OJEC. Scope of Directive 94/9/EC Concerning the scope of directive 94/9/EC the Committee discussed the following questions: A) Are electric cables and especially cables for the electrification of mines within the scope of directive 94/9/EC? It was common opinion that cables can be seen as components defined in directive 94/9/EC if they are placed on the market separately and intended to be incorporated into a product for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Under this condition they are within the scope of this directive. All other cables e.g. the ones used for electrification cannot be seen as being covered by this directive. B) Is directive 94/9/EC applicable to hand held tools? Following the discussion in the Committee a distinction has to be made between powered hand held tools like drilling machines, saws, etc. and simple tools like screw drivers and hammers. The former ones fulfil the definition of equipment in directive 94/9/EC (own potential source of ignition) and are therefore within the scope of the directive. The latter ones do not have their own sources of ignition and are therefore out of the scope of this directive. However it has to be taken into account that the use of hammers and such basic tools can certainly lead to sparks which could ignite an explosive atmosphere. Therefore these tools are treated in certain regulations referring to the use, e.g. directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. C) On demand of the Swedish delegation a question about the inerting of equipment was added to the agenda. Based on a practical example it was asked what level of reliability should be 18

19 III. 1 DECEMBER 1998 required for inerting systems to be accepted as a basis for a non-zone classification. Because this question could not be disseminated to the Member States in advance of the meeting it was agreed that the Steering Group would prepare an answer as a basis for discussion in the next Committee meeting. Status of the 118a ATEX Directive The Commission informed that this issue has been taken forward by the Austrian Presidency and had been discussed in several meetings of the Council working group for social questions. It is to be expected that the amended proposal for the Council directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres is being largely supported by Member States and will be adopted quite soon. Information about new edition of the Blue Guide Ms Liukko from DG III.B.1 reported on the work progress for the new edition of the Guide on the Global Approach and the New Approach (Blue Guide) which had been disseminated to the participants. In comparison to the previous version, which is already a number of years old, the new guide contains updated and more detailed explanations as well as an additional chapter about market surveillance. A further consultation on the Guide with the Senior Officials for Standardisation is foreseen for February/March 1999, but all participants are invited to give their comments on the draft Guide directly to the competent Commission service. In the following the guide will be translated into all eleven languages and is expected to be finished in autumn In the ensuing discussion the delegates from Austria and UK pointed out that in the Blue Guide the responsibility for CE marking of products is extended from manufacturers to persons placing the product on the EU market although in several directives only the manufacturer is mentioned as the responsible person. They expressed their doubts that an importer who is not involved in the construction and production phase is able to judge if a product fulfils all requirements for CEmarking. The Commission replied that the ATEX directive addresses itself clearly to the manufacturer or his authorized representative established in the Community but some other directives may be different regarding the definition of the responsibilities. Nevertheless the new Blue Guide does not change the situation as stated in the directive; it gives only more detailed explanations to the previous definitions. The Spanish delegate noted that the regulations in the New Approach directives are not always coherent. This situation is in his view not satisfactory and the Blue Guide is the only harmonising document. Rules of Procedure The Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee had been translated into all languages and disseminated to the Member States prior to the meeting. The Commission explained the slight changes made to the previous version following advice from the Commission legal service. No delegate showed objections during the meeting. If no further substantial comments are sent to the 19

20 III. 1 DECEMBER 1998 Commission in the meantime it is expected that the rules can formally be adopted in the forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee. Market Surveillance The Commission announced to disseminate a document about aspects related to market surveillance together with a questionnaire in order to get a more detailed and structured overview about market surveillance approaches followed by Member States in the EU. The received information will be collated and used as a basis for discussion in a first meeting on market surveillance in the ATEX field. It is intended to organise this first meeting in connection with the next Standing Committee meeting. Delegates from Member States in which the responsibility for market surveillance is divided into several authorities were asked to name one co-ordinator to represent the Member State. ORGALIME explicitly welcomed all market surveillance activities. Miscellaneous The next meetings of the Standing Committee are foreseen for week 23 in June and week 45 in November The Chairman thanked the interpreters and all participants for their collaboration and closed the meeting. 20

21 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL III INDUSTRY Industrial affairs II: Capital goods industries Mechanical engineering and electrical engineering Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels 8-9 June 1999 Meeting Report Part 1 (only Member States delegates) Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda, part 1 Mr. Anselmann, Deputy Head of Unit III.D.1, welcomed all participants. The draft agenda, Part 1, was unanimously approved. The chairman reminded the participants of replying to the Commission letter of in which Member States were asked to communicate the name and the address details of each representative for the Committee in accordance with Article 6(3) of directive 94/9/EC. Rules of Procedure The draft Rules of Procedure had been translated in all 11 languages and disseminated to the committee members for final comments. No further comments had been received so far. Following a question from the Spanish delegate concerning Article 8(2), last sentence, of the Rules of Procedure it was clarified that the deadline for comments on draft measures is meant to be 28 calendar days. All language versions will be reviewed in this respect. During the discussion a typing error (number of days) in the French and Swedish translations was identified which will be corrected as well. After the discussion the Rules of Procedure were approved unanimously, with the abstention of Portugal (see Annex 2). Market surveillance A questionnaire on market surveillance had been sent to all Member States in order to provide information about

22 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 how Member States carry out market surveillance; the contact points for market surveillance; any suggestion for the improvement of this practice. The Chairman underlined that only few Member States responded to the market surveillance questionnaire and it is therefore not yet possible to use the information received as a basis for further action. The delegates, who had not answered until this date, explained the reasons for the delay and promised to send back the questionnaire in short time. As soon as the information is made available the Commission services will complete the comparison of the situation in the Member States. The chairman proposed that information about the competent market surveillance authorities in the Member States should be made accessible for all interested parties by putting this information on an Internet web site. Following a discussion about the question how detailed this information should be, it was concluded that no names should be put on the web but all other relevant details about the competent services in the authorities which can be used as contact points in case of difficulties. In the course of the discussion Member States expressed the difficulty to quantify the necessary resources for market surveillance. This is related to the limited experience in the application of directive 94/9/EC and the ongoing transition from the old to the new approach. In a number of Member States the responsibility for market surveillance is shared either between services with different competence, e.g. ministries of labour and economics, or services with regional competence. According to the Italian and Swedish delegates it would be desirable for the purposes of market surveillance that the information given with the product includes as well the declaration of conformity. Especially for imported products it is very often difficult to identify the original manufacturer or the responsible person in the EU. This is in line with the Greek answer to question 7 in the market surveillance questionnaire. As Article 5(1) of directive 94/9/EC implies that the declaration of conformity accompanies the equipment placed on the market, the Chairman proposed to include this issue in the application guidelines. Corrigenda D, E, F The proposed corrigenda on which the Standing Committee had been consulted during its last meeting have been transmitted to the Council Secretariat General for further follow up. The Council jurists linguists are at present checking the proposal. The delegates will be informed as soon as a decision is taken. Miscellaneous, part 1 The Chairman announced in agreement with the Committee to reserve half a day of the next Standing Committee meeting for the discussion of horizontal issues like the accreditation and designation of notified bodies with the competent authorities. 22

23 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 Part 2 (all interested parties) Adoption of the draft agenda, part 2 The Chairman welcomed the joined participants. The draft agenda, part 2, was unanimously approved. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting The participants approved the minutes of the last meeting. Status of the 118a Atex Directive Mr. Rother, DG V, reported on the status of the draft 118a ATEX directive on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres. A common position on the draft directive was adopted by the Council at the end of last year and sent to the parliament for second reading. The Parliament adopted eight amendments, which were in the meantime sent back to the Council Committee on Social Affairs for discussion (see Annex 3). The Council secretariat will prepare a statement setting out the results of the debate which will be submitted to COREPER with a view to establish a mandate for the coming conciliation procedure. ATEX Study To update the knowledge on the ATEX sector in the light of the ongoing transition from Old to New Approach and in view of the internal market the Commission has ordered a study on Market description and competitiveness analysis in the field of products and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Taylor Nelson SOFRES, a French consulting company, carries out the study. Mr. Lamblin, responsible for this study within SOFRES, presented an interim report about the first results (see Annex 4). After an explanation of the methodological approach used for the realisation of the study, Mr Etienne presented figures on European market share of electrical motors with low, medium and high voltage, lightings, instruments, power distribution equipment and protective systems. The evaluation of mechanical products is still to be made. The presentation closed with a brief overview of interviewee s opinion on the directive and of the problems encountered. SOFRES intends to finish the study in October In the following discussion questions about confidentiality were raised. SOFRES explained that confidentiality is ensured and that all figures reflect only the situation in the Member States and give no information about single companies. The Orgalime representative stated that the problem of confidentiality is increased by the fact that the European market is very small. In connection with the presentation the level of some of the presented figures were discussed. In response to a request from the German delegate it was clarified that a certificate related to ISO 9000 standards although facilitating the certification in view of the directive should be distinguished from accordance with Annexes IV and VII of directive 94/9/EC. 23

24 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 It was concluded that SOFRES should take all statements as a basis for discussion and further clarification with the concerned parties. The mechanical products, the assessment of which still remains, form an important part of the study. SOFRES has to take this into account in its further work. The final report of the study will be discussed in the Steering Committee. Scope of Directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions The first question discussed was whether petrol dispensers are in the scope of the directive and if yes, how they have to be certified (entirely or only the parts of which they are assembled) and according to which categories this should be done. After a very lively discussion it was concluded that a petrol dispenser may be considered as an assembly within the scope of directive 94/9/EC, both if it is built of CE-marked and of non-ce-marked parts. Several delegations supported the opinion that a CE marking for the whole equipment is in both cases necessary. When assembling a petrol dispenser a manufacturer may use only CE-marked parts. In this case only additional hazards due to the fact that such parts are connected have to be assessed for the CE-marking of the entire dispenser. In case a manufacturer uses partly or fully non-ce-marked products for the assembly an assessment of the whole assembly has to be done. The categorisation of a product depends on the relevant use, while the use determines the necessary categorisation. Whilst it is not the role of the Standing Committee to determine the use, several representatives of Member States stated that category 2 would under normal conditions be applicable for petrol dispensers. Further application questions from Sweden and France related to equipment with an inerting system inside, separators, vehicles intended for use inside potentially explosive areas were transferred for discussion to the Steering Group responsible for the drafting of application guidelines. Progress on standardisation Ms. Cessac, chairwoman of CENELEC TC 31, and Mr. Schmidt, secretary of CEN TC 305 reported about the standardisation work in their Committees (see Annex 5). The Austrian delegate drew the attention on two standards, which are included in the CENELEC list of standards to be published as harmonized standards in the OJEC. Standard EN covers rules about the installation and maintenance of electrical apparatus. Because the installation and maintenance is not subject of directive 94/9/EC consequently installation and maintenance rules should not be published as a harmonized standard. The Committee took note of a statement from CENELEC that the foreword of the concerned standard should be amended by a sentence expressing that the clauses relating to installation and maintenance are not applicable to the requirements of directive 94/9/EC and do not form part of the harmonised standard. 24

25 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 The Austrian delegate raised the question of whether or not the reference to Standard EN should, similar to the practice in the EMC field, be published in the OJEC because it is a basic standard for test methods and would therefore not give presumption of conformity when applied on its own. The delegates supported the opinion that this standard should rather be seen in conjunction with the other harmonized standards laying down specifications relevant for the interpretation of essential requirements. This standard will therefore be published in the list of harmonized standards under directive 94/9/EC. The situation in the EMC field is not entirely comparable. As a follow up to the last meeting the Commission s CEN/CENELEC consultant prepared a list of 40 harmonized standards under the machinery directive which are related to explosion hazards. He already started to look at the content of these standards to see which fulfil as well requirements of the ATEX directive. The reference to these standards, if they give in substance technical expression of ATEX requirements, could then be included in the list of harmonized standards under the ATEX directive. The Vice-chairman of the ExNB group asked CENELEC to include in their harmonized standards a cross reference chart showing which essential health and safety requirements of the directive are covered by which clauses of the standard. Member States and Orgalime expressed their support for a Commission initiative to send a request to CENELEC for introducing these references in the standards in future. Draft guidelines on the application of Atex Directive 94/9/EC The Commission presented the draft application guidelines, which were available in D, E, ES, F, I and thanked Member States for their comments. The following items were discussed in particular: all references to Articles of the Treaty have to be adapted according to the numbering of the Amsterdam Treaty; the guidelines have to be amended by a further clarification on the term Simple Apparatus ; which is mentioned in standard EN 50020; the guidelines will be amended by a comment saying that the EC declaration of conformity shall accompany each single product to remain traceable for the market surveillance authorities; related to the discussion about the interpretation of Article 8(5) of the directive Member States were asked to provide the Commission with information about the practical application of this exception clause; participants were asked to provide the list of competent authorities in order to prepare annex 3 of the guidelines, as well as the details of a central contact point in charge of implementation of directive 94/9/EC in each Member State including EEA countries. It was agreed that all other questions and comments received would be, due to time limitation, given to the Steering Group for further treatment. The next meeting, which shall as well be the last meeting of the group, was scheduled for July It was common position that Member States could give their agreement on the final draft, once it is finalised, in a written procedure. The English version will be put on the web as soon as it is available. Following requests from several Member States the Commission consented to ask for translation of the guidelines in all languages. 25

26 IV. 8-9 JUNE 1999 Co-operation between Notified Bodies Mr Vries, Vice Chairman of the ExNB group, reported about the ongoing work since the last meeting. Two clarification sheets and the proposed modifications of the ExNB rules were presented to the Committee. Not all Member States had received the ExNB documents in time. The chairman requested that in future draft ExNB recommendations or technical sheets, which have reached a stage of final draft, are sent to the Commission in view of their submission to the Committee. This should be done by the ExNB chairman supported by the technical secretariat, preferably by electronic means and early in advance of the Standing Committee meeting to allow adequate preparation. As a result of the discussion of the ExNB rules Member States asked for a review concerning the introduction of an appeal procedure because the modification was regarded to be not flexible enough. In view of the ExNB meetings Member States expressed their wish to decide case by case on their participation without previous notification by the Standing Committee. The Commission intends to participate regularly. The UK delegate asked the ExNB Vice Chairman to receive the list of bodies participating at the ExNB meetings. The Czech representative requested that they be invited to attend future meetings of the ExNB Group. The Commission agreed to consider this request (which was later approved). Information about new edition of the Blue Guide The Commission informed that the New Approach guide has been finalised and is now in the stage of formatting It is expected that the English version is available within the coming weeks. The official publication of the guide in English, German and French is foreseen to take place by the end of summer, and in the other Community languages by the end of this year. Miscellaneous The next meeting of the Standing Committee is foreseen for the beginning of the year The chairman informed the Committee that Mr. Schneider is leaving the ATEX sector next August in order to join another Commission service. He thanked Mr. Schneider for the efficient work carried out in the ATEX sector and in particular regarding the elaboration of the guidelines related to directive 94/9/EC. The Chairman thanked the interpreters and all participants and closed the meeting. 26

27 V. 9 MARCH 2000 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels 9 March 2000 Meeting Report Part 1 (Member State delegates only) 1. Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda, part 1 Mr Anselmann opened the meeting and welcomed attendees from Member States. He asked if those present could agree to adopt the draft agenda as presented for the restricted part of the meeting. The Netherlands asked why the meeting for Member States only was scheduled for part of the morning when the previous minutes showed that one-half day had been agreed at the previous meeting. In response the Commission indicated that, although representatives had been asked to provide items for this part of the agenda nothing had been received. Following further discussion, however, it was agreed that the next meeting would devote a half-day for restricted discussion to consider a surveillance infrastructure for ATEX products which were now coming onto the market. It was also accepted that practices already developed in other sectors should be discussed with a view to their adoption, in particular those relating to safeguard notifications. The Commission services agreed to provide information on this and other issues for the next meeting. The Netherlands also asked if the procedures adopted by Member States for the assessment of potential notified bodies could be discussed under Any Other Business. In addition, Germany requested that the draft Guide be discussed prior to the second part of the meeting. On this basis the first part of the agenda was adopted with Assessment of potential Notified Bodies and Draft ATEX Guide added under Any Other Business. 2. Market Surveillance Mr Eardley (DG ENTR) informed those present that further information had only recently been provided in addition to that already discussed at the last meeting. As such there was little to add to

28 V. 9 MARCH 2000 the previous debate. The Chair highlighted the recent activity in other sectors and the ongoing discussion at the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation. It was clear there was a general consensus for the need of more resources and greater visibility. A watching brief would continue on developments and members would be informed of any substantive outcomes as a result of the discussion. 3. Approved Rules of Procedure Tabled and approved. 4. Corrigenda As members were aware, the work of the ATEX Steering Group had resulted with the Commission proposing a corrigendum in three languages to the Council to clarify the original text of the published ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. In response the Council, given that they were originally responsible for the translation of the directive, had taken over responsibility for this work and had published a corrigenda to all language versions in OJ L21/42 of 26 January This had been provided to the Committee. It was now up to national authorities to consider whether, as a result of this publication, amendments would now be required to their national legislation transposing the directive. Denmark pointed out that in their corrigenda the former wording "potentially explosive atmosphere" now read "explosive atmosphere". They were requested to inform the Council via their Permanent Representation. 5. Any Other Business 5.1 Assessment of potential Notified Bodies Netherlands asked if there was any leeway to investigate how national authorities assessed NBs, so as to ensure a level playing field and to adopt best practice where this was recognised. The Chair indicated that this was also an issue to be discussed at the next SOGS meeting, and that papers on this should soon be available to national administrations from the relevant Commission Services. This had been discussed at previous meetings and it was clear that where work had already been carried out this would be of interest to other members. The United Kingdom said that they did have such documents and would be prepared to provide them to the Commission for distribution. Other national authorities were also requested to provide such documentation which could be discussed at the restricted part of the next Standing Committee. Italy said that they also had manuals but would be interested to see documents from other authorities. The Chair summarised this part of the meeting by requesting documentation from members and indicating that it would add this item to the restricted part of the next ATEX Standing Committee. [Action I] 28

29 V. 9 MARCH Draft ATEX Guidance Notes The Chair pointed out that all delegates now had the final draft in all eleven languages. He said that this could now to be considered the final document. Given the time to-date in its preparation it was now recommended that it be published (subject to the above) although the text had always been seen as a live document, and as such would be reviewed as and when this was required. The German delegate indicated that, although they were keen to see the text published and agreed that the Guide was a very useful document, they still held reservations concerning the interpretation of the application of Article 8(5) and as such would recommend that the text of this part of the Guide be amended. If a compromise could be identified, they would then be prepared to see those caveats relating to this and other parts of the text to be deleted. After some discussion the German compromise text was accepted, and the relevant footnotes removed (see attached Annex for compromise text). The Spanish authorities said that they had only recently received the Guide in their own language and, as such, would need more time to consider the wording with a view to providing the Commission with any comments, although it was accepted that these may only be in relation to linguistic divergences. The UK, Denmark and Sweden also raised issues regarding those parts of the text dealing with installations and components. Following a good deal of discussion, it was agreed that the text could be accepted on the understanding that comments on the different language versions would be provided to the Commission services within four weeks of the meeting [Action ii]. In order to ensure that these issues were considered in a timely fashion, the general consensus was to provide the Guide by electronic means. Subject to comments received on the different language versions of the Guide, the draft text was accepted. Part 2 (all interested parties) 6. Approval of the draft agenda, part 2 Approved with no comment. 7. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting Approved. 8. ATEX Guide - Consideration of the final draft 29

30 V. 9 MARCH 2000 The Chair invited comments on the Guide. The Netherlands was of the opinion that the Guide should remain "live" so that changes could be incorporated as and when required, for example to the list of harmonised standards. Denmark pointed out that there were a number of linguistic mistakes in the Danish version and agreed to send in their comments to the Commission. The Chair informed members that there had been a few changes to part of the Guide agreed in the morning session, the wording of which was provided. He requested that those present should send their comments on the different language versions to the Commission within the next four weeks after which they would consider whether any changes were required [Action II]. He said that it was anticipated that it would be made available on the Commission web-site and as such relatively easy to update as required, although at least one paper copy might be made available. On this basis the draft was accepted. 9. ATEX Study Mr Eardley gave a broad overview of the results of the Study, which had already been provided to Committee members. Overall the market for ATEX equipment appeared to be about 2.7 Bn with the non-electrical side approximately the same value as the electrical ATEX sector. The market consisted of relatively few larger companies with the majority of trade taking place within Europe. Awareness of the directive and its potential impact was considered high in the electrical sector but less so in the mechanical sector and it was recommended that further efforts be made to raise its profile over the remainder of the transitional period. It was also suggested that a mechanism be made available whereby companies, in particular SMEs, would be able to ask questions in relation to the directive, although it was recognised that the Guide went some way to meeting this objective. Overall the Study was considered a fair effort and it was recognised that there had to be a deal of informed estimation when considering the non-electrical industry which now falls within scope. 10. Scope of the directive 94/9/EC - interpretation questions The Commission presented a paper which had been sent in by the Association of European Manufacturers of Industrial Gas Turbines (EuMIGT) describing the difficulties likely to be encountered in complying with the directive given the high surface temperatures of gas turbines in relation to the lower explosive limit temperature of methane and other relevant gases/vapours. Several participants were of the opinion that such equipment did fall within the scope of the directive as there was a likelihood for a potentially explosive atmosphere to form via leakage under normal operating conditions. The question appeared to centre around the need to ensure adequate ventilation to ensure a hazardous area did not form within normal risk assessment parameters. After some discussion it was agreed that the subject under discussion was relevant to a number of manufacturers of furnaces/ gas turbines. The Commission agreed to set up a "Think-Tank" prior to the summer break and invite interested parties to discuss the best way forward [Action III]. 30

31 V. 9 MARCH Progress on Standardisation Mr Eardley reported that sixteen standards were currently available (one non-electrical) and that a new list had recently been sent for publication with one additional electrical standard. Whereas it was accepted that the electrical standardisation work was running smoothly it was recognised that further efforts were required to assist CEN to identify the parameters of the directive in relation to mechanical equipment - the work foreseen on furnaces was viewed as (potentially) helpful in this regard. Mr O'Riordan said that work was ongoing to identify those standards under the Machinery Directive which were suitable candidates for further work to harmonise under the ATEX Directive. Together with the MD consultant, he had identified 50 such standards which were now under consideration. Dr Schmidt gave an overview of the work of CEN and progress to-date. The Commission congratulated CEN for the fast progress of the proposal for a harmonised standard in relation to quality assurance but requested that further efforts be made in other areas. The Commission indicated that it would make a request at the ATEX Workshop the next day for further industry experts in the field of ignition risks and mechanical equipment to assist CEN in a task which is now gaining even more urgency. Mr Czyz introduced himself as the successor to Madam Cessac to the Chair of CLC TC 31 and gave a brief explanation of work under the programme, which had been circulated. The Commission congratulated Mr Czyz on his appointment and welcomed the opportunity to continue the very good working relationship that had been the case to-date. Committee members were also informed that CLC had finally agreed to provide a cross-reference between their harmonised standards and the relevant essential requirements although it was unclear what form this would take. Mr Czyz indicated that he had requested a report on this at the next TC meeting. 12. Co-operation between Notified Bodies 12.1 Report by ExNBG Chairman Mr Brenon described the work of the work of the Group and the various sub-groups to those present. He expressed his disappointment that not all Notified Bodies were represented and requested Member States to encourage their appointed organisations to attend. He highlighted the need for the ATEX certification bodies to spread best practice to be found in Europe and said that the Group was keen to see other organisations attend as observers. The Chair said that, although this was seen as a step in the right direction the Group needed to concentrate on its core activities and not be deflected by expansion into other areas. Observers from non-eea bodies should be able to attend but these would need to be, in the main, restricted to areas where agreements were either available or under development. The need for confidentiality and full reciprocity should also be assured. He went on to highlight the need for full transparency in the Group's decision making process and pointed to the report and decision sheets tabled as evidence that procedures were now in place to ensure that this had been taken into account. In addition, the minutes of the last ExNBG meeting 31

32 V. 9 MARCH 2000 would be sent out to all participants of the Standing Committee and available as a matter of course in the future [Action IV] ExNBG Decision Sheets The ExNBG technical clarification sheets presented to the Committee were passed without comment. 13. Progress of PECAs/MRAs Mr Eardley informed the Committee that little progress had been made since the last report. Negotiations were continuing with the Czech authorities to ensure that equipment manufactured under either the ATEX Directive or the so-called "Old Approach" Directives would be accepted. The Commission services were still waiting to see whether the Czech Republic would be willing to sign a unilateral declaration which would provide for all such equipment to be placed onto the Czech market, rather than only those conforming to 94/9/EC. 14. Status of the ATEX 137 Directive Mr Rother (DG EMPL) told members that the ATEX (Art 137) Directive 1999/92/EC regarding the health and safety of workers operating in potentially explosive atmospheres had been published in OJ L23/57 on 28 th January 2000, and would become mandatory alongside the ATEX Directive on 1 st July The text in all eleven languages had been provided to Committee members and a brief overview of its coverage was given. He said that the next task would be to start to develop the "Best Practice" Guide as referred to in the Directive and work would start on this in the near future. The Chair thanked Mr Rother for the information and expressed his wish that the close co-operation between the two services continue. 15. Information Resource Centre A presentation was given to Committee members by Mrs Consiglia Moliterno of the CIRCA information resource centre tool showing how it could be used to both download documents and as a discussion forum. A good deal of interest was expressed by Committee members and the Commission said that it intended to use CIRCA as a mechanism for distributing documents and to hold virtual discussions using the interest group facility. Members were informed that they would be given access to the site within the next few weeks and were encouraged to use its facilities prior to its final structure being decided. They were also asked for suggestions as to how to maximise use of the CIRCA and to provide these to the Commission within four weeks of the meeting [Action V]. In addition, members were requested to inform DG ENTR if they already had access to the site other sectors to avoid duplication [Action VI]. The Committee were informed that one potential use of the site had already been discussed with Mr Brenon and, in principle, it had been agreed that an NB specific site be set up to enable technical discussions to take place and to provide a site where Type-Examination Certificates and Quality 32

33 V. 9 MARCH 2000 Assurance reports could uploaded by the Notified Bodies in order to fulfil certain requirements under the ATEX directive. Other possibilities were also invited. Date of next meeting The date of the next meeting was not set although it was agreed that it should take place some time in early December. 33

34 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, 8 th December 2000 Meeting Report Part 1 (Member State delegates only) Mr Anselmann opened the meeting and welcomed representatives from Member States. 1. Approval of draft agenda, part 1 The draft agenda for the first part of the meeting was agreed without amendment. 2. Market Surveillance 2.1 Draft Safeguard Procedures and notification form The proposed text was presented to the meeting (attached for ease of reference). It was explained that the wording had been based on that which had been agreed in other sectors and it was hoped that the suggested proforma was acceptable to the members of the Committee. Comments had recently been received from Spain and France and both would be considered with a view to drafting a further version of the papers. In response to a proposal from Norway, it was agreed to amend the paper to show that EEA members were also welcome to use the notification. In addition, there was a lengthy discussion regarding the informal procedures relating to actions taken by national authorities where third party intervention had been found to be at fault. It was agreed by the Committee that, on a voluntary basis, the notification form and procedures would be used in the meantime whilst a further version based on the discussion at the meeting should be prepared. Once finalised it was accepted that other language versions should also be uploaded to the Adco CIRCA. 2.2 Mutual Joint Visit Programme (MJVP)

35 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 Mr Eardley (ENTR) explained that there had been discussion at the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation (SOGS) regarding the possible inclusion of the ATEX sector in the second phase of the MJVP. However, Member States representatives had indicated that it was too early to consider at the moment and as a consequence it the sector had been withdrawn from the list. 3. Designation and surveillance of Notified Bodies The Chair thanked the UK and Danish delegations for their contributions. It was highlighted to the delegations that a number of papers had been uploaded to the Adco CIRCA and that these were copies of papers that were currently being discussed by a sub-group of SOGS. Whilst it was clear that the assessment and designation of Notified Bodies was solely a matter for Member States, it was clear that the provision of this information was worthwhile. In addition, it was anticipated that further discussion should take place regarding the possibility of sectoral guidance for this activity following consideration of the outcome of the discussion within the SOGS sub-group. The need for transparency was supported by the UK delegation. Mr Eardley said that he would upload any further documents from the SOGS as and when they became available and requested that those already disseminated should only be discussed within the national authorities. 4. Any Other Business It was agreed that the next meeting of the Standing Committee should schedule half-day for national authorities to provide time for further discussion on these two topics. Part 2 (Open Forum) Mr Anselmann welcomed those present. In addition, he invited the observers from Hungary and the Czech Republic to participate fully in the proceedings and indicated that the Commission was very pleased to see their attendance. 5. Approval of draft agenda, part 2 Approved without amendment. 6. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting Approved without amendment. 35

36 VI. 8 DECEMBER ATEX Guide (Final Version) Mr Eardley informed the Committee members that the English, French and German texts of the guide had now been uploaded to the ATEX CIRCA to provide interested parties with two weeks in which to give any drafting comments on the translation. It was hoped that these would be minimal. He apologised for the delay in finalising the different language versions and said that he hoped a number of others would be ready within the next few weeks following the meeting. It was now considered that these texts detailed the final first versions of the guidance notes. The only difference to the English text from that already published on the ATEX web-site was that Annex IV had now been replaced with the list of Notified Bodies published in the Official Journal. Whilst it was accepted that there would be a number of questions that might arise regarding the application of the directive it was not considered that the text of the guide would be amended for some time. The outcome of any such discussion would be provided in a separate section of the website. In addition, amendments or additions to the list of Notified Bodies would be dealt with by amending the HTML pages of the site, until a new list is published in the OJEC. 8. Scope of directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions 8.1 Gas Turbines Mr Eardley explained that further to the discussion at the last Standing Committee a Think Tank had been set up and a meeting had taken place on the 28 th June, The European Association of Gas Turbine manufacturers had been represented, as had a number of national authorities, standardisation bodies and users. The discussion was considered to have been constructive and a paper developed which had been accepted by all present. The document ATEX/00/2/I/4 was presented to the Standing Committee for their comments and endorsement. The UK delegation commented that, in broad terms, the paper attracted their support and informed those present that their technical representative at the meeting had since informed them that industry was now considering to support and develop a harmonised standard for such equipment. Mr O Riordan (CEN Consultant) confirmed that the document as presented had been accepted by those present on the day and re-affirmed that industry were prepared to develop a relevant norm. Mr de Haas (CEFIC) suggested that the solution should be seen from a user s standpoint and as such would fall under the ATEX Directive under Article 137 of the Treaty. Denmark considered that the paper provided a sensible way forward and supported its content. Austria considered that the wording required amendment to show that the turbine and ancillary equipment should be considered an assembly and, as a consequence, one should follow the guidance dealing with compliance of such products. Mr Brenon (Chair - ExNBG) asked that the Committee consider whether such equipment required certification. 36

37 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 Sweden commented that their manufacturers had never suggested that such equipment would fall under category 2 and certification was therefore not an issue. After further discussion the Chair summarised that industry appear to have accepted that such equipment (a turbine installed together with related equipment) normally falls within the scope of directive 94/9/EC and the readiness to support the elaboration of a relevant standard was welcome. Mr Eardley continued by asking the Committee whether there was general agreement to the content of the paper aside from the second paragraph on the second page of the presented document. As this appeared to be the case he said that this section of the paper would be re-drafted to show that the equipment may be considered an assembly (with reference to Chapter of the guide). In addition, it should more clearly show that, where appropriate, the assembler needed to take responsibility for compliance and the equipment needed to comply with all requirements of the directive, not just the EHSRs. The revised text would then be circulated for agreement by written procedure on the CIRCA site. 8.2 Furnaces (Presentation by CECOF and discussion) Mr Eardley informed those present that the subject of furnaces and whether they fell within the scope of the directive had also been discussed during the Think Tank in June. Unfortunately, agreement on how the directive may or may not apply had not been reached. Given the importance of the sector and the need for guidance CECOF (the European Committee of Industrial Furnace and Heating Equipment Associations) had kindly agreed to give a presentation of their point of view to the Committee. Mr Flamm (CECOF) then gave a short overview of the Association s reasoning underpinning their view that, in general, such furnaces did not fall under the scope of the directive. In short, the view presented was that such equipment is never intended to be used in a potentially explosive atmosphere, with particular regard the requirements for an atmosphere to become potentially explosive and the definition of a normal atmosphere. However, it was accepted that the manufacturer must provide information for the user in relation to the ATEX directive 1999/92/EC relating to the health and safety of workers should the process lead to such an atmosphere. In response to the points made the Chair of the ExNB Group said that it was very clear to him that the directive 94/9/EC applied as there was a potential source of ignition and the potential for an explosive atmosphere. He was uncertain whether the argument stemmed from a fear of third-party intervention but pointed out that the end-user would undertake a risk assessment, consider the zoning concept and purchase the required equipment. If this equipment was to be placed in a zone and has a potential source of ignition then it appeared evident that it needed to comply with the ATEX directive 94/9/EC. He summarised by saying that it clearly depended on intended use. Austria pointed out that the directive discussed potentially explosive atmospheres, and as such one had to consider the likelihood of such an atmosphere arising. Netherlands saw this issue as the same as that already discussed for gas turbines. One needed to look at the subject from the aspect of both types of directive both intended use and risk assessment liked to zoning. Denmark said that its users usually did not classify the areas surrounding such equipment and as such they did not meet the requirements for categorisation. In general the Danish authorities agreed with CECOF but it was clear that where an explosive atmosphere had the potential to be present then the directive applied. A clear yes or no answer was not available. 37

38 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 Mr de Haas (CEFIC) agreed with the approach adopted by the Netherlands authorities. Belgium was of the opinion that the issue needed to deal with on a case-by-case basis. Germany requested that the debate be confined to categorisation where it was clear that if the manufacturer intended the equipment to operate in a potentially explosive atmosphere then it fell within the scope of 94/9/EC. The UK pointed out that one element of the CECOF presentation did not provide a complete picture as it had not taken into account the footnote to table 2 of the guidance. As a consequence the rationale as presented may be incorrect. The UK went on to say that there appeared to be two routes by which a potentially explosive atmosphere could be generated, a leakage of gas from inside the equipment or a leak from the pipelines feeding the furnace. The process may involve drawing air from the surrounding area which could include gas from the feeder pipes, which was considered a problem for the user. In their opinion, it was clear that furnace manufacturers knew how to make such equipment safe but precautionary measures were already usually adopted which meant steps to comply with the requirements of 94/9/EC were already taking place. Mr Brenon highlighted that the manufacturer usually asked the user for information concerning zoning classification in order to ensure that the equipment was manufactured to the correct specifications. Mr O Riordan (CEN/CLC Consultant) pointed to the relationship between the Machinery directive and the ATEX directive. It was clear that the latter was a specific directive to the Machinery directive and that its requirements needed to be complied with in relation to ignition risks where this was considered necessary. Following his visit to a number of furnaces and consideration of a list of over thirty-five different types of furnaces it was clear that they needed to be addressed on a caseby-case basis. Using the example of a bell-type furnace, Mr O Riordan explained that it was necessary to purge the device and replace one gas by another. A rubber gasket was provided in order to avoid a leakage of gas and a potentially explosive atmosphere. A number of standards had already been produced under the Machinery directive, one of which (EN 746-7) already catered for dust hazards. In his opinion, some of the furnaces would need to comply with the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and all would need to consider 1999/92/EC. Mr Huhle (Orgalime) indicated that the manufacturer would be the one to consider if his equipment is intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere and that assessment would need to be made whether there was the possibility of a leakage creating such an atmosphere. In response to the points raised by the members of the Committee Mr Flamm accepted that application of the directive 94/9/EC was dependent on the intended use and whether the intended area of use required classification. In summary, Mr Eardley said that it was clear that the ATEX directive was specific to the Machinery directive and would need to be considered should the equipment be intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere. The general view of the Committee was that the basic principles of the directive needed to be applied and that this should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. 38

39 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 The Chair invited the CECOF representation to reconsider their position in the light of the statements made by the Committee Question (DK) - The application of the directive to cooling plants Denmark said that this question had been raised by a number of large manufacturers of such equipment in order to ensure a common application of the relevant requirements by all concerned. Apparently there are Swedish branch organisation standards for such systems and these appear to suggest that, in general, the ATEX directive should apply. However, the position was considered slightly unclear as these units are manufactured to ensure that no leakage of gases occurred, and as such there is no possibility of an explosive atmosphere occurring. Mr Bezen (CEN) pointed out that a standard for such equipment had already been published under a mandate under the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23/EC and that such norms could be considered as potential candidates for full development under ATEX. However, it would be for the technical experts to agree to their inclusion. Austria said that ATEX should be applied where a potentially explosive atmosphere exists or where one was produced by the equipment itself. If there was no possibility of this happening then the directive did not apply. The question therefore needed to be asked as to whether there was a possibility of this occurring. The Netherlands supported this view. In addition, they considered that one needed to assess whether such apparatus should be defined as an installation, in which case it was not covered by directive 94/9/EC but directive 1999/92/EC. However, where this was considered equipment and was to be used in a zoned area then the equipment should be categorised. Mr Brenon highlighted that CFCs were no longer being used and gases such as methane were being put is its place. This needed to be considered in any risk analysis. Any filling or emptying might provide a source leading to a potentially explosive atmosphere. Sweden said that it did have guidance on the issue but this was not law. It was clear that the ATEX directive regarding the health and safety of workers was being applied and the same principle applied as previously discussed relating to gas turbines and furnaces. Mr Czyz (CLC) considered that a risk assessment was required at the design stage and that if this judged that there was zero likelihood of any leakages then the directive need not be applied. However, if this was a possibility, the converse would be true. Denmark said that it had understood from the manufacturers with an interest that there was no possibility of leakage. Austria considered that the approach needed to be adopted by way of a manufacturer s decision as to whether the cooling plants were covered by the definition of equipment as detailed in the directive, with further assistance provided for by par of the ATEX guidance. 8.4 Questions UK Question 1 Does the EC DoC need to include the amendment level of the harmonised standards used? 39

40 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 It was agreed that the answer as provided in document ATEX/00/2/I/7 was correct, the identification being either by means of provision of the amendment level or the date of issue Question 2 - Who decides the date after which a superseded harmonised standard no longer provides for a presumption of conformity? Mr O Riordan explained that it was the technical experts in the committees within the relevant standardisation organisation who decided the doc (date of cessation). In response to the Netherlands observation that a three-year transition was usually too short Mr Anselmann pointed out that it was the standardisers who set out these schedules and, as manufacturers were usually represented in this process, and one would expect them to be in the best place to make a decision. Austria agreed with Germany that the standards committees were in the best position to make this decision but that the Commission should double-check that the date set would not present any problems. Orgalime agreed with this approach. Mr Anselmann noted the comments made but went on to say that a number of years of experience had now been gained in other areas, such as LVD, and few problems had been encountered Question 3 - What is the status of an EC-type examination certificate based in whole or in part on an old harmonised standard where the relevant date of cessation has been passed? CEN were of the opinion that if the change to the standard concerned either serious technical issues, a change in scope or of application relating to safety issues, then the TEC would need to be revised. Mr Brenon said that Notified Bodies often had to deal with this issue where an amendment to a standard required an amendment to a TEC but pointed out that this did not usually mean that a full set of tests needed to be carried out. Denmark considered that it was the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that the certificate was kept up to-date. Mr Brenon was of the opinion that it was also up to the Notified Body to consider whether the certificate was still valid. Orgalime accepted that the responsibility to respond to a change rested with the manufacturer, but said that a number of revisions would lead to an unfair burden. In response Mr Brenon pointed out that not all amendments required a new certificate. France pointed out the need to differentiate between the responsibilities of the Notified Body for the TEC and the Quality Assurance. The discussion now centred around the former where the Notified Body was not involved in monitoring. The Chair was of the opinion that the directive was not specific on this issue and that it was clear that Notified Bodies did have a responsibility for their own certificates. He pointed out that a number of directives either explicitly time-limited TECs. Orgalime asked whether this approach would require a procedure to be set up so that the appropriate action could be taken. 40

41 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 Mr Anselmann said that there should be an arrangement between the manufacturer and Notified Body to ensure that, in the case of an adaptation to (a) standard(s) relating safety factors the validity of the certificate is reviewed and, if necessary the TEC amended. Italy pointed out that under the directive the withdrawal of TECs could only take place for significant reasons, for example justified safeguard actions. In response to a call from the Spanish delegation for a need to ensure consistency, Italy suggested that a date be placed on the TEC. Mr Anselmann re-affirmed that the responsibility for compliance of the equipment rested with the manufacturer and that, in the case where a harmonised standard has been applied, the reference in the declaration should make clear which edition of a standard has been used. If there is a change in the relevant standards then it is for the manufacturer to consider whether this has an impact on the conformity and hence, requires new tests and documentation. Turning to TECs, this was considered a mutual responsibility between the manufacturer and Notified Body and that both should consider whether a revision would lead to the necessity of a review of the TEC Question 4 - How is the advance in technology to be addressed where a doc and/ or a TEC directly addresses the EHSRs? Belgium considered that there was an ongoing need to consider the product in relation to technical progress alongside meeting the safety requirements of the directive. This might mean the need to consider compliance every five years. Mr Huhle (Orgalime) responded that this appeared too rigid and restrictive, as it depended on the product and the prevailing circumstances. Mr Brenon agreed that a five year limit appeared arbitrary but that a given time limit may be useful. Mr de Haas questioned whether there was a need for a review given that the equipment had originally been found to be safe. Austria pointed out that nobody had suggested that equipment became unsafe after a five year period and went on to say that they considered a five year period as unreasonable. Mr Eardley responded to the comment from CEFIC that there was an ongoing responsibility to take due account of technical progress, as stated in Annex II of the directive. Mr Brenon called for clarity in order to avoid confusion and suggested the need to consider appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the various parties undertook to review technical progress at a reasonable time period. Belgium re-iterated its view that five years seemed reasonable, and this view was supported by the UK in the spirit of best practice. Germany did not support any time limit given the ongoing responsibilities. The Chair accepted that the directive did not set a time limit for these things but agreed that it was important for there to be appropriate mechanisms in place between the Notified Body and manufacturer to ensure the updating of certificates where advances of technology affected compliance with the EHSRs. 41

42 VI. 8 DECEMBER Question - Netherlands Clarification of EHSR (a) Following positive comments by Mr Brenon and Spain, it was agreed that the interpretation by the Netherlands was correct and that this part of the essential requirements related to the explosion safety aspects and to the safety aspects of EHSR The wording should be slightly revised to add explosion. 9. Progress on standardisation 9.1. CEN TC 305 (revised progress report attached) Mr Bezen (CEN) informed the Committee that CEN TC 305 now covered thirty-seven projects relating to mandate 92/46 given by the Commission. Since the last meeting it was considered that good progress had been made and twelve projects had now been sent to public enquiry and one had been ratified (relating to flame arrestors) which was expected to be sent for publication early next year. Seven projects were likely to be sent for formal vote in the second quarter of next year and emphasis was being placed to accelerate those projects beyond the final enquiry stage. It was expected that seven non-electrical standards would be available by the end of Although CEN was pressing forward to deliver the norms required, Mr Bezen asked that the Commission consider further funding to assist the work in this area. Mr Anselmann thanked Mr Bezen for his report and said that the progress was welcome. He suggested that a meeting be held between CEN and the Commission to discuss the question of funding in more detail. Mr O Riordan expanded on the information already provided to say that a very important standard was now in a late stage of development ( ) and that the work was continuing to produce the sectoral QA standard, which was likely to surface later next year. In addition, over forty standards had now been identified under the Machinery directive as likely candidates for full development under the ATEX directive 94/9/EC. Mr Vilain (ENTR) was introduced as one of the officials responsible for the Machinery directive. He applauded the work and, based on a paper presented by France in the machinery sector, questioned whether it would be possible to produce a B type standard to avoid the product standards having to be individually amended. In response Mr O Riordan said that the should be able to act as a B type standard, the question was not whether one would be produced but over the content of the draft. Mr Anselmann congratulated those involved and asked that further pressure be applied to increase the pace of standards-making under the ATEX directive. 9.2 CLC TC 31 Mr Czyz (CLC) provided a written report of progress since the last meeting together with a CLC work programme. 42

43 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 In addition, he indicated that good progress was being made in CENELEC and three standards had recently been concluded (50016/18/19). These would be passed to the Commission for publishing in the near future. An updated list is now available. It was now considered that there was a good level of co-operation with the Notified Bodies and cooperation was ongoing with CEN to consider alignment of terminology. During its last meeting CLC TC31 decided to give to the Commission, for each harmonised standard the cross references between EHSR s and relevant clauses in the standards. CLC BT disagrees and prefers the edition of a CENELEC report. Spain does not understand why these comparisons are not included in the standards as CEN does. This solution gives more transparency. Mr O Riordan commented that full detail was not required, but a general overview. 10. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Mr Brenon provided a written report of progress since the last meeting (attached) Discussion of Notified Bodies decision sheets These were noted by the Committee. However, it was requested that decision sheet 44 be amended to show that it is a certification, not a Notified Body, that would issue such a voluntary certificate that is outside of the scope of the directive Published list of Notified Bodies The Committee was informed that a list of Notified Bodies had been published in OJ C292 of 13 th October, Progress of PECAs/ MRAs Mr Eardley explained that a good deal of work had taken place since the last meeting. He informed the Committee that it was likely that a trade agreement would be signed early in 2001 allowing CE marked products compliant with the ATEX directive to be placed on the Czech market. In addition, electrical equipment certified to the so-called Old Approach directives could also be placed on the Czech market so long as a declaration was made by the person placing it on the market in the form as tabled. Mr Brach of the Czech authorities introduced himself and explained the way in which the ATEX directive had been implemented into national legislation. He confirmed the details as already presented. Mr Eardley went on to indicate that preliminary screening had already taken place with Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia and Lithuania with a text only recently received from Latvia. All were at different stages of implementation with Hungary and Slovenia considered to be very close to having correct texts. Mr Hanko from Hungary expanded on this to say that the ATEX directive would not become mandatory until 1 st July 2003, in line with the European legislation. He went on to say that it was anticipated that the text would be implemented in mid-2001 and so compliant equipment could then be placed on the Hungarian market. In addition, he informed those present that an ATEX Workshop 43

44 VI. 8 DECEMBER 2000 had recently taken place in Budapest at which the Commission, PTB and INERIS had provided presentations. 12. ATEX 137 directive Mr Ross Carruthers (EMPL) introduced himself as a Detached National Expert from the Health and Safety Executive of the UK who had recently taken over responsibility for the ATEX directive dealing with the health and safety of workers. He said that as a first step a tender was being prepared to assist a working group which had yet to be set up in order to start developing the Vademecum as required in the text of the directive. 13. Any Other Business The next meeting is to be scheduled over two days in late June 2001, with the first half-day to be restricted to national authorities only. 44

45 VII JUNE 2001 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, June 2001 Meeting Report Part 1 (Member State delegates only) Mr Anselmann opened the meeting and welcomed representatives from Member States and candidate countries. A one-minute silence was observed in remembrance of Mr Hirschbuhler. 1. Approval of draft agenda, part 1 ATEX/01/1/M/1 The draft agenda for the first part of the meeting was agreed without amendment. 2. Draft Safeguard Procedures and Notification form ATEX/01/1/M/2 ATEX/01/1/M/2.1 Mr Eardley (DG ENTR) presented the latest version of the draft safeguard procedures and form (ATEX/01/1/M/2). He informed the Committee that this had been altered substantially from the previous draft in line with the comments received at the last meeting and to reflect the working document (ATEX/01/1/M/2.1) currently being considered at the Senior Official s Group on Standardisation (SOGS). The Chairman explained that the working document had been prepared with a view to providing a clear set of instructions on the way in which safeguard notifications should be handled. The main aim of the paper was to provide guidance for the internal procedures of the Commission in relation to its responsibilities under the relevant Articles. However, it also included a number of important elements in respect of the practices of Member States. Denmark pointed out that the model notification form from the working document was different from that proposed under the ATEX procedures. In response Mr Anselmann said that whereas the model should be considered as the framework document, it was clear that the various sectors needed the flexibility particular to the equipment

46 VII JUNE 2001 under consideration. It was judged that the two documents did share core characteristics plus those aspects required for the identification of ATEX equipment. Spain indicated that its opinion regarding the revised text was positive but sought clarification regarding whether the Commission issued a report or an opinion. The representative went on to ask whether the notification proforma needed to show whether CE marking was attached or not given the two headings available. The question was also raised as to whether the notification would be treated confidentially. DG ENTR advised that they would only ever issue an opinion to a safeguard notification. It was also pointed out that a Member State might feel it helpful to inform others of actions taken regarding a certain product where a restriction had not been placed on its free movement. There may therefore be cases where an informal notification was made where the equipment had CE marking. In response to the final remark, it was confirmed that the details would remain confidential and that only cases of general interest would be uploaded to the CIRCA site. In addition, following a further intervention by the Spanish authorities, it was confirmed that the sixty day standstill period would start from the date of receipt of the formal notification, and that contact points would be made aware of this date as required. At the request of Germany, DG ENTR agreed to double-check the addresses of the secure contact points [ACTION POINT 1]. In addition, after further discussion on the problems encountered with the CIRCA system, DG ENTR agreed to inform all Member States and others when a safeguard notification had been uploaded by . However, this procedure would be reviewed at a later date to see if it was still necessary at that time. DG ENTR also accepted that, once the text of the notification sheet was considered stable, it would be translated into all languages [ACTION POINT 2]. On further consideration, it was agreed to add the number of the Notified Body to the proforma notification in line with the draft-working document on safeguard procedures [ACTION POINT 3]. The Chairman pointed out that the text had now been under scrutiny for some time, and asked those present whether it would be acceptable given the minor amendments agreed for incorporation. The Committee agreed to this approach. 3. SOGS Working Paper review of the New Approach ATEX/01/1/M/3 The Chairman introduced the subject and welcomed Alain Deckers, from DG ENTR/G1, as one of the co-authors of the paper being presented. Mr Deckers gave a quick run-through of the main points of the paper under discussion at the SOGS Working Group including market surveillance, Notified Bodies and safeguard measures. He highlighted that at the moment it was only a working paper and was not any other form of communication, and that its content could still change after further discussion with Member States. Whilst the paper dealt with a number of issues, Mr Deckers bought the Committee s particular attention to that part dealing with Notified Bodies. It was recognised that, to-date, minimum criteria 46

47 VII JUNE 2001 had been set with the implementation and enforcement responsibilities resting with Member States. Whilst this should work well it was clear that increased transparency was required to engender confidence between the States. At the request of the Commission services Member States were currently being requested to provide information on the way in which they assessed, appointed and monitored such Bodies so that a matrix could be prepared comparing different applications. This could then, if agreed, be further developed as guidance for Member States. At the initiative of the Chairman, the views of the Committee were sought on the details of the paper: Spain said that they thought the paper was on the right lines, and asked if there might be the possibility of using consultants for certain duties. In response Mr Anselmann pointed out that the paper did consider how the Commission services should try and deal with an increasing workload against static resources and the technical complexity of files. This state of affairs meant that the Commission would need to assess whether external expertise might be used more frequently in the future. In replying to a request from the UK on statistics regarding Notified Bodies, Mr Deckers confirmed that there were now over 1,000 such Bodies although in a few sectors some territories may not have any Notified Bodies at all. France asked whether there were any trends in the number of safeguard actions. The Chairman said that, in Unit G3 for the year 2000, 342 notifications had been received under the LVD, 73 EMC with an upward trend, 2 for Machinery and 3 for PPE. It was explained to the Committee that the Commission realised that there was a real backlog of notifications, in particular under the EMC Directive and action had been taken as a result. In response to questions raised by those present regarding the future operations of Notified Bodies, Mr Deckers said that it was too early at the moment to consider whether there were sufficient misgivings over the present system so as to provide the impetus for increasing the minimum requirements or other measures. Germany said that it was in favour of providing fundamental requirements and leaving the technical expression to the Member States, in line with the New Approach principle. Italy said that it had introduced national legislation whereby potential Notified Bodies were accredited to the relevant harmonised standard under the series. This was considered particularly important in areas where matters of safety were paramount such as gas appliances and ATEX. They suggested that this might be the basis for a Council Decision. Mr Deckers observed that this was also the case in other, but not all Member States, for example Sweden was of the opinion that any Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) fulfilling the relevant technical requirements should be notified. In addition, the approach within European legislation itself was different given that the Marine Equipment Directive based its minimum requirements directly on the EN series of standards. Austria considered that the EN series to be a useful tool but noted that the standards did not cover all of the respective minimum requirements including technical competence. The representative was of the opinion that the main divergences were to be found regarding this aspect rather than the general specifications. 47

48 VII JUNE 2001 The Chairman asked those present to ensure that any views they had on this subject were transmitted to the relevant national SOGS representative. In addition, he re-affirmed the Commission s commitment to inform the sectoral Committees of any developments in the so-called horizontal sphere of discussion that may be of interest. Mr Deckers summarised by saying that at this stage nothing could be ruled out with the next step being a Commission Communication to the European Council and Parliament on the New Approach to gain their reaction to the issues raised. 4. Treatment of Stocks UK - Qns A late paper tabled by the UK was discussed and it was agreed that it should be presented for full discussion on the second day, for the agreement of the full Standing Committee. The UK agreed to this approach. 5. ADR vs ATEX (Discussion only) Mr Eardley introduced this item on the agenda by explaining that a question had been received by DG TREN concerning the relevant application of scope of the ATEX Directive alongside the ADR, the latter relating to the transport of dangerous substances by road. The Committee was introduced to the responsible official for ADR Mr Morere Molinero from DG TREN, who explained that, whilst guidance was provided in the Commission s Guide to the ATEX Directive he was seeking further clarification on the delineation between the application of the two Directives. France pointed out that it had already received a letter from the Commission services on this very question. The representative said that it was clear from the response that any vehicle the intended use of which was to enter into a potentially explosive atmosphere would be required to fulfil the requirements of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC from 1 July Austria agreed with the opinion as explained by France. The representative went on to say that it would appear ADR covered technical requirements in relation to loading and unloading and so these aspects were covered by that regulation. However, if a vehicle were intended by the manufacturer to be used in a zone, aside from one created by the unloading or loading operations then ATEX Directive 94/9/EC would need to be applied. The UK supported this view within certain limits but pointed out that vehicles transporting certain types of packaged dangerous goods would fall outside of the scope of both sets of legislation. Germany concurred but went on to say that international transports would be subject to international regulations. In addition, if the discussion concentrated on petrol/ oil tankers then the Committee needed to be aware that there may be unforeseen consequences regarding parallel application and that 94/9/EC could only consider intended purpose as viewed from a manufacturer s point of view. If the manufacturer did not foresee that the vehicle would be used in an explosive environment then it would be the responsibility of the user to ensure that appropriate equipment is used. However, this was evidently outside of the scope of 94/9/EC. Mr Morere Molinero asked whether the ADR requirements would be sufficient to comply with the ATEX Directive. 48

49 VII JUNE 2001 In response Mr Eardley pointed out that the technical specifications were broadly similar but that this could in no way mean that the vehicle would automatically comply and that the issue of the relevant conformity assessment procedures would also need to be considered. In summary of the discussion, Mr Eardley said that it appeared to be that the consensus of the Committee was that vehicles covered by the ADR were covered for all ignition risks related to transport, loading and unloading and the risks created by explosive atmospheres becoming present by these operations. However, a vehicle within the scope of the ADR would also need to comply with the ATEX conformity assessment procedures and EHSRs if it was intended to operate in potentially explosive atmospheres aside from those instances within the scope of the ADR. DG ENTR together with DG TREN agreed to provide a paper on this interpretation and to provide the Committee members six weeks for comments prior to uploading to the ATEX public web-site. Part 2 (Open forum) Mr Anselmann opened the meeting and welcomed attendees. He explained that the previous afternoon had been used to discuss matters relating to safeguard issues as well as other items of national interest. He went on to inform the Committee that, if they agreed, a paper would be tabled later in the meeting to be presented by the UK dealing with concepts of placing on the market and putting into service. Proposed answers had already been provided by Austria as a basis for discussion. 1. Approval of draft agenda, part 2 ATEX/01/1/I/1 The draft agenda was agreed with the introduction of the UK paper and proposed responses as the last item under point 4 of the agenda (attached for ease of reference). 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/01/1/I/1 Approved without amendment. 3. ATEX Guide (Discussion only) Mr Eardley informed the Committee that the Commission Guidance notes on the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published in hard copy in English, French and German. It was also available on the ATEX public web-site in English, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Swedish. It was expected that the remaining languages would be ready in the autumn. Whilst it was clear that certain parts of the Guide were now slightly out of date, Mr Eardley reminded those present that the Commission was committed to provide the Guide in all languages, and this would remain its first priority. 49

50 VII JUNE 2001 He asked those present if they could agree to this way forward, on the understanding that a second edition would be prepared once all languages had been provided as a first edition. Clarification sheets regarding the scope of the Directive would then be added to the annexes, as would up to-date lists of harmonised standards and Notified Bodies. It was not anticipated that the main body of the text would be amended, unless there were very strong reasons for doing so. This was accepted by the Committee. 4. Scope of Directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions 4.1 ADR vs ATEX Mr Eardley summarised the discussion and findings from the meeting of Member States the previous day. In particular, it appeared the consensus of Member States that vehicles covered by the ADR were covered for all ignition risks related to transport, loading and unloading and the risks created by explosive atmospheres becoming present by those operations. However, a vehicle independent from application of ADR would also need to comply with the ATEX conformity assessment procedures and EHSRs if it was intended to operate in potentially explosive atmospheres aside from those instances within the scope of the ADR. DG ENTR together with DG TREN agreed to provide a paper on this interpretation and to provide the Committee members six weeks for comments prior to uploading to the ATEX public web-site [ACTION POINT 1]. This was accepted by the Committee and Members were provided with six weeks to respond from the date that the proposal was uploaded to the CIRCA site. 4.2 Integration of new and old equipment Mr Eardley introduced this item of the agenda and said that this had been raised as an issue by manufacturers as to the delineation between the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC in respect of the integration of old (non-compliant) equipment and new ATEX compliant equipment. It was considered that this was a matter of use and therefore the responsibility of DG EMPL. The manufacturer could only have an idea of intended use and if the characteristics of integration were not foreseen it fell outside Article 95 of the Treaty. Mr Carruthers (DG EMPL) said that this was a clear case where a risk assessment would be required by the employer under the Directive dealing with the health and safety of workers operating in explosive environments. He also re-iterated that Directive 1999/92/EC provided for a set of minimum requirements and as such national authorities could request additional specifications so long as this did not present a barrier to trade. 4.3 Miner s Cap-lights for Rescue Operations ATEX/01/1/I/3 Mr Eardley presented the paper, explaining that there had been a problem over a number of years regarding the use of miner s cap-lights for M1 environments. He said that manufacturers were finding it technically and commercially almost impossible to produce such lights fulfilling the requirements for equipment intended for use in M1 conditions. It was considered very important to find a solution to this issue given the need for mine rescue operations to be carried out using such equipment. 50

51 VII JUNE 2001 Without prejudice, it was considered that rescue personnel could use such equipment if technical progress meant that this was the only such equipment available for that purpose. The risk assessment by the employer was also required to take note of extra-ordinary conditions and operations and rescue operations would evidently appear to fit into this category. Mr Anselmann pointed out to the Committee that the paper under scrutiny was based on use legislation and the Standing Committee was not therefore within its scope of competence if it were to rule on such a paper. He asked attendees to note its contents and said that the lack of objections would also be recorded. The contents of the paper would then be passed to DG EMPL who dealt directly with this issue. The content of the paper was consequently noted by the Committee and will be passed to DG EMPL. 4.4 Safety Devices with a Measuring Function ATEX/01/1/I/3.1 ATEX/01/1/I/3.2 The paper provided by the UK (ATEX/01/1/I/3.2) was presented by Mr Tyldesley of the UK s Health and Safety Executive. In summary, the text centred on how to deal with a measuring device when it acts as a safety device as defined under Article 1(2) of the Directive in the cases where it is placed on the market as part of a system or placed separately onto the market. A good deal of general discussion took place regarding the content of the paper. The general consensus was that the document was very difficult to follow and used terminology not to be found in the Directive. It was therefore finally agreed only to consider the direct questions and answers being submitted to the Committee. Q1. How does the ATEX Directive apply to devices with a measuring function? A1. Article 1(3a) of the directive includes such devices if they are located either wholly or in part in a potentially explosive atmosphere, and are capable of causing an explosion through their own potential source of ignition. Reason: Measuring devices are no different from other equipment to be used in an explosive atmosphere. Agreed by the Committee. Q2. Some devices with a measuring function contribute to explosion protection. Does this make any difference to how the directive is applied? A2. Answer: If a measuring device is an integral part of the explosion protection measures incorporated into equipment to be used in a potentially explosive atmosphere, then the measuring device is a safety-related device and specific EHSRs set out in Annex II (1.5) apply. Compliance with these must be established by application of the relevant conformity assessment procedure. This may include evaluation of the performance of the measuring device. Reason: Since the explosion protection of the equipment depends on the performance of the measuring device it is necessary for this to be evaluated in the context of its operation within the equipment. Examples of devices with a measuring function: 51

52 VII JUNE 2001 A pressure switch that is used to measure the pressure of a protective gas in an enclosure protected by Pressurisation (Type of Protection p ). If the protective gas supply fails the switch must open and disconnect the electrical power, and so remove the source of ignition. A thermostat used to measure the temperature of an electric motor protected by Increased Safety (Type of Protection e ). If due to overload the motor is in danger of overheating and becoming a source of ignition the thermostat must open and disconnect the electrical power to the motor. The Netherlands and Austria both indicated their agreement with the text where one considers a measuring device as a safety device and part of a system. The proposed question and answer were both endorsed by the Committee. Q3. Most measuring devices are manufactured by specialist manufacturers and supplied to the manufacturer of the equipment to be used in a potentially explosive atmosphere. Can the provisions of the directive be applied to the measuring device by its manufacturer? A3. Proposed Answer: In most cases no. The exception is where the measuring device is equipment as defined by Article 1(3a) of the directive. In these cases the explosion protection measures applied to the measuring device are subject to the directive, but the evaluation of its performance is not. Reason: In the example of the pressure switch above, it may be located in an explosive atmosphere and be a potential source of ignition. It will then be equipment under the directive. However its performance (the ability to detect a specific pressure and open a contact) will not affect its risk of becoming a source of ignition, so this is not taken into account when its compliance with the directive is determined. The provisions of the directive relating to the performance of a measuring device can only be applied by the manufacturer of the equipment that utilises the device for explosion protection. In the example given, the manufacturer of the pressure switch cannot apply the provisions of the directive to the performance of the switch because he does not know how it will be used. Conversely, the manufacturer of the equipment that is protected by Pressurisation must apply the directive to his complete equipment and evaluate the performance of the pressure switch in its context of use. The UK was of the opinion that the answer depended on the knowledge of the manufacturer. Austria said that the answer depended on whether manufacturer is aware of the interface characteristics allowing the measuring device to be certified accordingly. Mr Anselmann was of the opinion that the answer required further detail in this respect. Germany agreed that, in order for the examples to be correct, the manufacturer would need to be aware of the intended use of the system to which the measuring device was intended to be connected together with its appropriate category. Mr Eardley pointed out that the question and answer under scrutiny covered an area which was solely the responsibility of the manufacturer. It was therefore inappropriate to agree to an answer giving the presumption that in most cases the provisions of the Directive might not need to applied to such devices. The paper needed to be factual rather than interpretative. Mr Anselmann summarised the discussion to the extent that this proposal required further consideration, also within the ExNBG Group, and re-worded as appropriate before it could have the support of the Committee. 52

53 VII JUNE 2001 Q4. Some measuring devices may be placed on the market for use in an installation and not equipment. The measuring function may contribute to the safe operation of the installation and help to prevent explosions. How does the directive apply to such devices? A4. The provisions of the directive cannot be applied to the performance of the measuring function but will apply to any explosion protection measures of the device. Reason: The contribution to safe operation of the installation cannot be determined by the manufacturer of the measuring device and is not within the scope of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. The installation may be subject to ATEX Directive 99/92/EC. Mr Anselmann concluded that the above question was a matter of installation and therefore not within the scope of Directive 94/9/EC. France agreed with this answer. Austria brought the attention of the Committee to Chapter 4.2 of the Commission guidance to the ATEX Directive. It was agreed that the last two examples provided did appear to relate to installations and would therefore need to be reconsidered in the next edition. In summary of the paper, the Chairman thanked the UK representation and suggested to the Committee that further work was required before final agreement could be reached. He proposed that the paper be considered by the Ex NB Group and then discussed further in a Think Tank before being re-presented to the Standing Committee. This was accepted. Mr Shearman (Chair - Ex NBG) said that the Group would be happy to comment, and said that the paper would be of particular interest to Sub-Group 98/5 who were considering clarification sheets on devices with a measuring function. It was agreed that a meeting would be arranged to discuss the outcome of the discussion of the 98/5 Ex NBG Sub-Group on this paper in the autumn [ACTION POINT 2]. 4.5 New Agenda Item - UK Questions for the Standing Committee UK QNs (proposed text following discussion attached for ease of reference) The Chairman informed the Committee that the paper provided by the UK was considered helpful, in particular given the short time to the mandatory application of the Directive. The objective of the paper was to provide further guidance for manufacturers regarding the concepts of placing on the market and putting into service. The Chair went on to explain that non-compliant products could be placed onto the market up until and including 30 June The concept of putting into service was not defined in the Directive but was explained in the so-called Blue Guide as when the product is first put into use. He said it was clear from the Blue Guide that non-compliant products with regard to Directive 94/9/EC, which were ready for use, and had already been placed on the market prior to the mandatory application of the Directive, are to be considered as having also been put into service at the moment of their being placed on the market. In effect, ready for use meant that such products were not subject to further operations that may affect their performance or safety characteristics. Turning to the questions raised by the UK, Mr Anselmann presented the document and explained that Austria had provided the proposed answers as a basis for discussion. The discussion of the Committee was as follows: 53

54 VII JUNE 2001 Q1. There was general support for the answer provided although a further explanation would need to be added concerning ready for use in line with the comments made previously by the Chairman. The request by Germany for a reference to that part of the Guide dealing with the issue under scrutiny (Chapter 3.7) was accepted. As a point of principle the consensus was that spare parts were required to comply with the Directive if they were placed separately onto the market and fell within the prescribed definitions. Q2. A reference to the Chairman s opening remarks was provided. The concept of use was outside the scope of the Directive and therefore not addressed. Q3. This was not accepted. Equipment, protective systems and safety devices under Article 1(2) of the Directive placed onto the market separately and not incorporated into other equipment prior to placing the final functional unit onto the market/ putting it into service would evidently need to comply. Q4. Outside the scope of Directive 94/9/EC and hence not a matter for the ATEX Standing Committee. Q5. As Q2. Q6. It was agreed that the proposed answer would need to be re-worded taking into account the comments of the Guide on such matters and using the same terminology as the Directive, where only the manufacturer or authorised representative are able to apply for assessment to the EHSRs by means of the appropriate conformity assessment procedures. Q7. Agreed. The Chairman rounded off the discussion by proposing a revised document to be prepared on the basis of the discussion to be circulated to Standing Committee members within six weeks of its presentation. This was agreed [ACTION POINT 3]. It should be noted that the relevant paper annexed to this report has been produced as a consequence of the above discussion for the approval of the Committee or comments within six weeks. 5. Progress on Standardisation The Netherlands pointed out that Directive 1999/92/EC referenced categories to zones, as did the CENELEC dusts standard EN However, the gas standard EN only referred to types of protection and zones. Mr Carruthers replied to the effect that Directive 1999/92/EC only set minimum requirements and that they did not talk directly to the standardisation bodies. 5.1 Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 ATEX/01/1/I/4 In the absence of Mr Bezen the CEN progress report was provided by Mr O Riordan (CEN/CLC Consultant) who said that ten standards were now ready, four in draft with a further four in the process of publication. He referred to ATEX/01/1/I/4 and informed the Committee that the thirty-seven standards listed under the auspices of this Committee should be ready towards the middle of

55 VII JUNE Standardisation work in CLC TC 31 ATEX/01/1/I/5 Mr Czyz (Chair CLC TC 31) informed the Committee that all standards were now in the hands of either the Commission or the CEN/CLC consultant except those dealing with encapsulation. However, some delay was being experienced at a national level where not all of the national committees were ready to adopt those standards already presented. Mr Czyz went on to say that a formal report would be provided following the next meeting of CLC TC 31 in September. Mr Eardley asked whether progress had been made in relation to the cross-reference between CLC standards harmonised under the Directive. In response Mr Czyz said that a separate document would be prepared with completion expected in early Publication of Standards in the OJEC Mr Eardley informed the Committee of a further publication in the OJ C 51 of 16 February There were now twenty harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, but as yet only one non-electrical standard. 5.4 Revised mandate to standardisation organisations ATEX/01/1/I/6 In a summary of the present situation, Mr O Riordan explained that not all of the electrical standards had been received from CLC TC 31, and a discussion would be required to clarify the current state of play. It was clear that CEN were operating from a green field site but progress had been slow. Mr Eardley repeated the message that had been given at previous meetings that, although there was sympathy in relation to the starting position of CEN, time was now critical and progress had to be made to provide a number of these standards before Directive 94/9/EC became mandatory. A meeting had taken place with the CEN/CLC consultant and the CEN Secretariat on the current position and how to take things forward. It had been agreed that a new list be provided (ATEX/01/1/I/6) to give further detail to the general mandate and current lists already given to the standardisation organisations. The standards were based on the work undertaken by Mr O Riordan together with CEN in identifying those standards under other Directives (in particular the Machinery Directive) suitable for full development as harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive. This list (ATEX/01/1/I/6) was tabled for the endorsement of the Committee. The Committee was informed that target dates had yet to be finalised but, if agreement could be reached on the norms identified during the meeting, a final draft list would be circulated for the attention of Committee members as soon as this was available. It was re-iterated that the target dates should be realistic and achievable, and the Commission would take steps if progress was not in line with the prescribed time-table. In addition, the CEN Secretariat had agreed to send letters to the Convenors of the relevant Working Groups pointing out where progress had slipped behind the relevant schedules and requesting that further efforts be made to speed up the process. Mr O Riordan said that procedures within CEN had improved and that administrative delays so far experienced should be kept to a minimum in the future. In particular, he pointed out that there was 55

56 VII JUNE 2001 now a new CEN Central Secretariat and that the three language versions required by CEN were now the task of the Technical Committees. He went on to inform the Committee there had been two main problems experienced in relation to the proposed list. The first related to the apparent unwillingness of some of the Committees to accept that their equipment fell within the scope of Directive 94/9/EC (for example, furnaces [which had been resolved]) and the second was how to deal with the additional ATEX requirements within those standards already identified as potential candidates for development. The latter had been resolved by a letter from the Commission services that where publication of such standards was imminent, full development would be put on hold and the published standard would include an exclusion clause to that effect. In response to a question by the Chairman as to how one might ensure that all relevant standards could be identified Mr O Riordan explained that it was clear that some might not be readily identified. However, a letter was issued as a matter of course by the Management Committee requesting that Technical Committees volunteer standards suitable for full harmonisation with the Directive. The list was endorsed by the ATEX Standing Committee subject to three deletions (shown at Annex 3 for ease of reference) on the understanding that this was a live document and may require revision in the future. 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies The Chairman welcomed Mr Shearman as the new Chairman of the ExNBG, and asked for his appreciation of the work undertaken by Mr Brenon and the previous Vice-Chairman to be passed on. Mr Shearman gave his report to the Committee. A summary of his report is attached at Annex 4. Mr Shearman also informed those present that a paper is to be prepared for submission to the next ATEX Standing Committee on the subject of trade agents. 6.1 Discussion of Notified Bodies Clarification Sheets ATEX/01/1/I/7 ATEX/01/1/I/8 The Committee noted the content of the Clarification sheets presented. Mr Eardley explained that the relevant sheets would be uploaded to the ATEX public web-site with the caveat that a number of the older papers may be superseded by technical progress. 7. Progress of candidate country implementation of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Mr Eardley informed the Committee that a PECA with the Czech Republic would become operational on the 1 July In effect, this meant that CE marked ATEX equipment originating in either the EC or the Czech Republic could now be placed in either market as well as electrical equipment certified to the so-called Old Approach Directives up to 30 June In addition, from that date the Czech authorities would designate Notified Bodies that could be used by EC manufacturers. This development evidently provided further opportunities for all interested parties and was to be welcomed. 56

57 VII JUNE ATEX 137 Directive (Taken after point 4.5) Mr Carruthers (DG EMPL) explained that the tender had now been published regarding the socalled Vademecum under 1999/92/EC and an award was expected by the end of the summer although the timing for completion of the work was uncertain. In addition, the results of the tender were only to provide a basis on which to start the discussions regarding the guide. The UK asked if there was a possibility to comment on any drafts and requested that these be built into the time-table and the Chairman asked if there was to be a Steering Group regarding the ongoing work as a result of the tender. In response, Mr Carruthers said that the work was covered under two Committees. The Chairman underlined the importance of this process for the interface with Directive 94/9/EC and requested that the Committee be kept informed of progress. He also asked for consideration to be given to whether an addendum to the Vademecum to cover 92/104/EC, the use Directive also relevant to products covered by the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. 9. Any Other Business The Chairman informed the Committee that a second ATEX workshop was being proposed, initially envisaged taking place in April It was suggested to those present that this would be along the same lines as the previous seminar and would follow a one-day Standing Committee. It was therefore agreed that the next Standing Committee should be arranged to take place in April, a specific date to be agreed. 57

58 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, 27 th March 2002 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mr Anselmann opened the meeting and welcomed attendees, in particular those from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia. He informed those present that a number of documents had only been recently received and asked Mr Eardley to inform the meeting of latest developments. Mr Eardley (DG ENTR) confirmed that, despite the deadline set out in the agreed Rules of Procedure, members had sent in a number of papers only a few days prior to the date of the meeting. These included: A response from Germany to the UK paper on mills. A text for discussion from Orgalime regarding the IECEx scheme. A set of three discussion papers from the German authorities relating to the approved text dealing with transitional arrangements. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/02/1/1 The draft agenda was agreed with the introduction of the latest papers. It was accepted that the recently received paper from Orgalime would be tabled but not discussed on the day, given the lack of time for representatives to consider its contents. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/02/1/2 Approved without amendment. 3. Scope of Directive 94/9/EC. Interpretation questions 3.1 Safety Devices with a measuring function ATEX/02/1/3.1

59 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 ATEX/02/1/3.2 Mr Eardley reminded those present of the discussion at the last meeting regarding the application of the Directive to safety and controlling devices providing a safety function for equipment intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. A paper tabled by the UK had initiated the previous discussion. After lengthy consideration it had been agreed at that time that, whilst the text was useful the terminology was not in line with that of the Directive and that it should be considered further by a sub-group of the ExNBG. Members of the 98/5 NBG sub-group had prepared the two current papers, which had now been presented for consideration by the Committee. The Committee accepted the essence of both documents, namely: Safety and controlling devices are covered by the relevant requirements of the Directive if they contribute either directly or indirectly to the safe functioning of equipment intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres; It should be understood that the meaning of the Directive is such that safety devices are covered under the Directive, even if (and not only if) they are intended for use outside a potentially explosive atmosphere and provide a direct (or indirect) contribution to the safe functioning of equipment intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. It was also evident that the controlling of ignition sources for such devices (in respect of the ATEX Directive) outside of a potentially explosive atmosphere was not required, and was meaningless if the device was inside such a potential atmosphere but did not contain an ignition source. However, this did not preclude the need to consider other relevant aspects. Mr Shearman (Chair - ExNBG) indicated that the papers had yet to be agreed by the ExNBG Group and would need to be finalised prior to final agreement by the Committee. He added that most of the confusion on how to treat such devices appeared to stem from translation differences between the German and English versions of the Directive. [Action I] It was agreed that the papers would be finalised by the Group, and circulated by written procedure to the members of the Standing Committee (with a three-week deadline for comments). If no objections were received both papers would be uploaded to the Enterprise web-site as so-called Considerations by the Standing Committee. 3.2 Mills ATEX/02/1/4 (New Document) ATEX/02/1/4.1 Mr Eardley introduced this item on the agenda that had been raised by the UK authorities. He reminded the Committee that whilst a general discussion on categorisation of equipment could be constructive the responsibility for such a decision could only be taken by the manufacturer or authorised representative. The member s attention was also brought to the recently received paper from Germany on this issue (ATEX/02/1/4.1) which should also be considered under this item of the agenda. The UK started the discussion by explaining that mills (e.g. intended for the grinding of flour) were usually to be used in an environment where a dust hazard might exist and a risk of ignition may be unavoidable. It was therefore considered necessary to take other protective measures to ensure that the equipment operated safely. Given this background, it was not considered possible to 59

60 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 manufacture such a mill to meet Category 1 requirements. The view of the Committee was requested as to whether the paper was in line with the opinion of other members. Germany said that the important issue to consider was that of intended use and the fact that such equipment was not usually intended to be placed in an already existing potentially explosive atmosphere but one may be created by way of the grinding operation itself. The German authorities agreed that it was impossible to eliminate all potential ignition sources and as such this equipment could generally be designed and manufactured to meet the requirements of Category 2 and 3 but not Category 1. Orgalime said that it had no particular comments but would pass on the main findings of the discussion to its members. CEFIC agreed that it was technically impossible to produce such a mill to Category 1 requirements. It might therefore be necessary to undertake addition measures that were already potentially foreseen under the ATEX 99/92/EC use Directive. Mr Shearman asked whether this type of equipment usually took EHSR into account to ensure that it withstood the pressures developed by an explosion taking place. The UK said that this was generally the case but there was the specific problem of the inlet and outlet by which means the explosion might reach the outside of the equipment. In response to a question as to whether standards existed for such equipment from Mr O Riordan, DG Enterprise agreed to send a letter to CEN requesting that consideration be given the development of ATEX harmonised standards covering mills and similar equipment. The Committee supported this action. [Action II] This letter is to be prepared and annexed to the draft minutes of the meeting. 3.3 Gas Turbines ATEX/02/1/5 The Chairman pointed out that this dealt with the issue of categorisation and the same points therefore applied as the previous item on the agenda. The attention of those present was bought to the fact that a paper had been provided for information under any other business which gave the latest developments regarding this type of equipment. It was clear from feedback received that the clarification sheet uploaded to the public internet site had given a very good basis for the application of the Directive to such equipment and news had recently been received that this might be used as a basis for an international standard. The UK presented their paper summarising that, in general, it would appear that such equipment would be categorised as Category 3. In response to a request for clarification from Mr Shearman, the UK confirmed that this was a general approach, which could not be seen as absolute. CEFIC pointed out that such equipment was not normally intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere and as such the only issue for consideration was the generation of such an atmosphere by the operations of the turbine. Germany agreed with the view expressed by CEFIC and said that it depended upon the individual case to be determined. There were the separate issues of the atmosphere potentially created by the turbine in respect of its own ignition sources (such as the heat shield) and that of the area into which it was intended to be installed. 60

61 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 Austria agreed. In addition, the Austrian delegation pointed out that the issue of controlling the turbine s own potential explosion risk had already been discussed with dilution ventilation being the preferred technique, coupled with additional back-up and shut-down protection measures. In summary, Mr Anselmann indicated that there could not be agreement to a definitive statement that all such equipment should be Category 3, as those present were not aware of where each such turbine was to be placed, which evidently affected the categorisation to be applied. 3.4 Offshore platforms ATEX/02/1/6 Mr Eardley introduced this as an item that had recently been raised concerning the application of the exclusion of mobile units and seagoing vessels from the scope of the Directive. He pointed out that this exclusion was already to be found in the Machinery Directive and the more recent Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) and as such had been subject to such exclusion for a number of years. Given a recent request for clarification the PED Working Party had provided the presented text (ATEX/02/1/6) which was now presented to the Committee. Denmark said that it could apply the proposal, but that consideration should be provided to a mobile unit having the requirements of carrying a flag. The UK informed those present that they had not yet had the chance to discuss with national stakeholders, but thought that the current situation might lead to uncertainty. In the national regulations, production units had originally been considered as those units in-situ for more than five years. However, with the depletion of reserves it was becoming more prevalent that such units might be in place for a lot less time than this. Norway said that they were content with the suggested wording. However, they considered that there was a need for clarification of the borderline between floating devices and those parts of such a unit used for drilling and production purposes. The delegation informed the Committee that this issue had already been considered in relation to the Machinery Directive, which was applied solely for those parts used for drilling purposes. Orgalime requested that a number of drafting points be considered. In response to the issue raised of fixed units being put into service after the mandatory date for application of the Directive Mr O Riordan pointed out that, at least for the electrical equipment, compliance should not present great difficulties in respect of technical requirements. Spain said that it could accept units being excluded, if these were used for offshore exploration. In terms of the definition of a mobile offshore unit they considered that such a unit would be required to have its own means of propulsion. The Spanish delegation considered that this exclusion related to the interface of the Directives concerned with the IMO. They also pointed out the inconsistency of the need for all mobile units (and equipment intended for use on such units) and seagoing vessels with the last sentence of the proposed PED Guidelines. France informed those present that this item had been raised as a result of a query raised by Totalfina Elf. [Action III] Mr Anselmann said that it was clear that a common interpretation was evidently required. In particular, the interface between the ATEX Directive and the IMO regime should be considered. This issue would be discussed with colleagues dealing with the other Directives and a 61

62 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 subsequent report, carrying a proposal, provided to the members by written procedure for consideration. 3.5 ATEX Guide The Commission services informed those present that the last version guide of the Directive would be uploaded to the public internet site within the next few weeks. Given that there was a need for stability and in order to avoid confusion it had been provisionally decided not to provide a second edition until some time after the mandatory application of the Directive. At this point in time this was judged to potentially require (aside from one or two minor amendments) only an updating of the factual part of the text and the addition of Questions and Answers dealt with by the Committee. In the meantime the uploading of papers, accepted by the Committee to the Enterprise website, would be used to provide clarification on particular issues should this be considered necessary. 4. Progress on Standardisation Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 ATEX/02/1/7 ATEX/02/1/7.1 Mr Rainer Schmidt provided the Chairman s report of this technical Committee (see Annex 3). Mr Bezen (CEN) was questioned on the timing of the request for publication of pren 1398, dealing with Quality Assurance. In response it was clarified that this was likely to be sent to the Commission services within the near future. In reply to a question by Denmark, Mr Schmidt said that the list of standards provided in the document ATEX/02/1/7.1 showed those potential candidates identified for full harmonisation to the ATEX Directive dealt with outside of CEN TC 305. Mr O Riordan commented on progress in the non-electrical field over the past twelve months. Overall work had been accelerating with the availability of a standard text to be included in nonharmonised standards that eased the workload of the relevant Working Groups. The lack of personnel in WG 1 was noted, and he informed the Committee that work on common definition was going forward. Mr Anselmann thanked Mr Schmidt for his report and commented on the good progress since the last meeting. Given the recently revised list of candidate non-electrical standards for harmonisation now included into the general mandate and the tools provided by the CEN/CLC Consultant he said that even greater progress should be expected in the future. Standardisation in CLC TC 31 ATEX/02/1/8 Mr Czyz (Chair TC 31) referred to the report provided to the Committee. He asked those present to note that the decision had been taken so that there was to be no distinction between CLC and IEC standards and as such the 79 series of standards would be of increased importance in the future. He informed attendees that there was a procedure in place to liaise with the Notified Bodies but this was considered cumbersome. Mr Czyz said that this process would be considered further together with the Chair - ExNBG. 62

63 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 Progress on cross-referencing between electrical harmonised standards and EHSRs Mr Czyz confirmed to the Committee that this would take place in the form of a technical report and discussed at the next Technical Committee. Mr Anselmann indicated that pressure for progress on this issue would continue and increase if no developments occurred in the near future. Austria supported the Commission standpoint regarding the need for this cross-reference, as well as the need for compatibility between international and harmonised standards. Mr Vetsuypens (CLC) pointed out the need to refer to other Directives where relevant, and that appropriate standards would be adopted from IEC using the available check list of suitability. Mr Shearman welcomed the potential progress in providing the cross-reference, and requested that particular attention be given to those standards providing for a presumption of conformity to EHSR and risks relating to software. He asked for clarification as to how standards were adopted as potential harmonised standards. Mr Bezen (CEN) described the system i.e. a mandate was received from the Commission (which might cover either one work item or a Directive). In respect of Directive 94/9/EC this was in the form of a general mandate 92/46. CEN then starts work to establish a live programme of standardisation, which includes all projects underway. This might therefore cover more than one sector given that the EHSRs may relate to more than one Directive. He informed those present that the list of standards tabled included those that had been identified as potential candidates and covered relevant projects from a number of sectors. It was to be noted that this list might contain standards that could be considered as unsuitable following a further review with the CEN/CLC consultant and others may yet be added as and when they were identified. Mr O Riordan pointed to the progress being made as more potential harmonised standards had been added to the list. He highlighted the ongoing work being undertaken with CEN TC 198 and CEN TC 271 and said that a number of standards in this area were at a very developed stage. The common text provided by had been found to be very useful. Mr Bezen informed the Committee that actions were now underway to accelerate the final voting procedure, which should speed up the process. Publication of standards in the OJEC Mr Eardley informed the Committee that there were now twenty-seven harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, of which eight related to non-electrical equipment. Final revised mandate to standardisation organisations ATEX/02/1/9 The attention of those present was directed to the copy of the letter to CEN, together with the annexed list of standards mandated under the Directive giving further detail to the general mandate already sent. In response to Denmark, it was confirmed that the list was not the most up to-date but should be seen as a live document which would be added to and subtracted from as and when potential candidates were identified or rejected. It was also pointed out that the list provided by Mr Schmidt showed the latest state of play and that this mechanism would continue to provide transparency to the Committee of the standardisation process. 63

64 VIII. 27 MARCH Co-operation between Notified Bodies Mr Shearman explained that there had been little activity by the ExNBG since the most recent meeting twelve months ago and that the last meeting had to be cancelled due to a lack of administrative secretariat. The Chairman confirmed that, for reasons outside of the control of those present, there was presently no administrative secretariat for the ExNBG, but it was hoped this situation would change in the second-half of the year. He also indicated that the Commission services would consider if any action could be taken to try and hold an earlier meeting than might otherwise be the case. The Commission agreed to organise a meeting on its own premises in the absence of a solution. 5.1 Discussion paper (FR) ATEX/02/1/10 France informed those present that there had been a request to see if it would be possible for lists of equipment assessed in relation to protection against dust ignition hazards to be provided in order to assist users identifying compliant equipment. Although the objective of the proposal was considered commendable after some discussion it was agreed that, whilst Member States may require to provide their Notified Bodies to make public certificates issued this was not within the terms of the Directive. It was also pointed that as there was no third-party intervention for Category 3 equipment this was not an issue in relation to such products. In relation to certificates and reports issued and communications between Notified Bodies, it was pointed out by the Commission services that it was an obligation under the Directive for Bodies to communicate to other Notified Bodies relevant information concerning Type Examinations and QA reports issued, amended or withdrawn. Austria and France both agreed that this was a different issue to the proposal, which might be considered on a voluntary basis. Italy supported the need for a database as a mechanism for transmitting this information. It was agreed that the Commission would liaise with the Chair-ExNBG in order to determine the precise nature of relevant information and to provide a suitable form of wording as a proposal to the member states. The Chair would, in turn, liaise with Notified Bodies as to what they considered to be necessary and proportionate. It was pointed out that a CIRCA system already existed and this appeared to be the most relevant tool for such a purpose. Once the format of the information to be uploaded had been agreed, the Commission said that it would follow up with a two months delay requesting Member States to confirm that their Notified Bodies were transmitting the required information. In addition, at a later date, it would be considered as to whether agreement could be given by Member States to open up the CIRCA so that the national authorities could use the information for market surveillance purposes. [Action IV] Mr Shearman to liaise with Notified Bodies with a view to agreement on proforma details. Once agreed, the Commission to circulate to Member States with reasonable deadline for 64

65 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 comments. Finally, deadline set for opening up of NB CIRCA web-site after which (two months) Member States to be asked to confirm their Notified Body involvement. 6. Progress on implementation of ATEX in candidate countries Mr Eardley explained that the majority of candidates were waiting until after the Directive became mandatory in Europe before implementation. However, progress in other areas had been made and it was likely that Agreements would be signed with Lithuania and Latvia within the next few months. G3 sectors covered included LVD, EMC, MD, Lifts and PPE, EMC and LVD respectively. 7. ATEX 137 Directive DG EMPL had been unable to provide a representative. Those present were asked to note the content of the written report provided (Annex C). 8. ATEX Workshop - 15 May 2002 ATEX/02/1/11 The Chairman explained that, given the ever-approaching deadline for the mandatory application of the Directive, it had been decided to hold a second Workshop on the Directive. This set of presentations would concentrate not only on latest developments but also on expansions to scope to the existing EU framework non-electrical equipment and dust hazards as well as risk assessment. Those present were requested to register as soon as possible given the limited number of spaces available. 9. Any Other Business 9.1 Transitional Arrangements ATEX/02/1/12.1 ATEX/02/1/12.2 ATEX/02/1/12.3 The Chairman explained that, following the approval of the paper on transitional arrangements by written procedures at the last Standing Committee. The German authorities had further considered the issues under consideration and had provided three reflection notes for consideration. Germany said that it had now had time to discuss the papers on the ATEX web-site dealing with the transitional arrangements and had provided the comments as helpful observations to improve the text. Austria said that although there were points to be considered the fact that questions had been asked meant that a response was therefore necessary. The delegation said that it considered amendment in light of the comments where substantive may be feasible but deletion of text should not be considered. The Netherlands pointed out that there were only four points for consideration. 65

66 VIII. 27 MARCH 2002 The Chairman asked those present to consider document ATEX/02/1/12.3. Questions and Answers 1 and 4 were considered acceptable. Question 2 did not refer to the use of a product as considered by the Germany authorities but to stocks held by an end user after the end of the transitional period which may be ready for use or not. If not ready for use and their safety or performance characteristics required alteration then compliance with the Directive would be required. Question and Answer 5 would also need to be considered in this respect and did not deal with used products. [Action V] In summary, the Commission services agreed to consider the points raised and to provide its reaction to the Committee for consideration by written procedure. 9.2 Gas Turbines The attention of the Committee was drawn to the paper provided by the UK on the latest developments regarding gas turbines. 9.3 Date of next Meeting The Chairman informed those present that it was intended to have two more meetings of the ATEX Standing Committee prior to the 1 July Although the dates had yet to be set these were likely to take place in December 2002 and May/June He asked those present to ensure that all issues should be raised to ensure a full agenda and discussion. 66

67 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, 6 th & 7 th February 2003 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mr Eifel (Chair) welcomed those present, in particular the participants from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/03/1/1 The draft agenda was agreed with the introduction of two items: I. 3.1 Revision of the Low Voltage Directive 72/23/EC III.3 Placing on the market - UK 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/03/1/2 Approved without amendment. Mr Eardley (DG ENTR) went through the previous action points, as follows: Action I This related to the circulation, agreement, and uploading of the two draft papers presented by the ExNBG in relation to safety devices with a measuring function. Unfortunately, given the difficulties of organising an ExNBG Meeting without the support of an Administrative Secretariat, the two papers had not yet received the formal approval of this forum. As a result, it had not been possible to circulate these to the Standing Committee. Members were informed that these two clarification sheets would be issued as soon as they were received. Action II

68 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 A letter had been sent to CEN asking that it consider the development of standards under Directive 94/9/EC for mills. This was attached to the minutes of the previous meeting. The CEN representative informed the Committee that details of their response would be provided later in the meeting. Action III Interaction of Directive 94/9/EC and the IMO Mr Eardley said that this had been considered and the Commission services continued to support the clarification sheet provided by the PED Sub-Group. As the UK had requested that this be raised under a separate item any further issues would be dealt with in that part of the discussion. Action IV The Notified Bodies had discussed the question of reasonable information but, given the difficulties referred to previously, a formal position had yet to be determined. It was anticipated that this would be available once the minutes of the last ExNBG meeting had been agreed by the Chairman. Action V It was considered that the note regarding placing on the market found on the DG Enterprise website was sufficiently robust and did not require amendment. Again, this would be discussed in further detail under an item raised by the UK. 3. Questions Raised ATEX/03/1/3 I. QUESTIONS OF SCOPE 1 Application of the ATEX Directive to dust filters (UK) Mr Tydesley of the UK presented their paper. In summary, there appeared a problem in the Commission s ATEX Guide with respect to the application of the Directive to dust filters. As a general rule, these have no moving parts, or they move so slowly that there is no mechanical (friction) ignition risk. They fall within the scope of the Directive only because of Table 2, Footnote (a), second sentence: a) but YES for products inside the internal potentially explosive atmosphere. Moreover it has to be considered that the equipment as a whole has to be capable of functioning in conformity with the operational parameters established by the manufacturer and ensuring the required level of protection according to Annex II, item (Principles of integrated explosion safety). Also YES for non-electrical (mechanical) equipment where a potential explosive atmosphere is inside the equipment (e.g. fans, ventilators, blowers or compressors providing ignitable mixtures) and a potential source of ignition has to be assumed. The UK considered that such filters did not fall under the Directive and considered that the part of the Guide referred to was incorrect. As such, they asked the Committee to consider if they could agree to deletion of this part of the Footnote. 68

69 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Austria and Germany agreed with the UK. Mr Eardley pointed out that there were two parts to the question, the first referred to the treatment of the filter bodies, and the UK was requested to provide a clarification sheet for circulation to members. The second part related to the Footnote. Members of the Committee were asked as to whether they supported the need for deletion together with AU, DE and the UK. This view was supported. The Commission services agreed to receive and upload the amended sheet to be provided by the UK giving those present four weeks to comment. In respect of deletion of the footnote a clarification sheet would be prepared but all Member States were ask to consider their own language versions to identify any further errors in respect of technical, linguistic, or factual errors, the latter in respect of contact points. A formal corrigendum would then be prepared for circulation to the formal Committee members for their approval prior to uploading onto the internet site. Action I Commission to upload the UK revised clarification sheet to the ATEX IRC, giving four weeks for comments. If none received this is to be uploaded to the internet. (Annex 2) Action II Commission to prepare clarification sheet re-affirming the view that the second sentence of Footnote a) to Table 2 is incorrect and should be deleted. Upload and four weeks to comment. (Annex 3) Action III Member states to consider own language versions and provide details of errors (confined to technical, linguistic and contact details) within four weeks. Commission to circulate for consideration by Committee (four weeks) after which this is to be translated and circulated to the members of the formal Committee (Member States only) for approval. If approval given then this is to be uploaded to the DG ENTR web-site. 2. Application to non electrical Simple Apparatus (NL) The representative from the Netherlands pointed out that there was a description of simple apparatus in EN and EN which consisted of equipment which did not have its own inherent source of ignition. The question was asked as to whether the Directive, including the conformity assessment procedures, needed to be applied to such equipment? In addition, whether a list of such equipment should be produced to assist the manufacturer. Denmark responded that as this type of equipment did not have its own ignition source it did not fall under the Directive, and as such these procedures did not have to be applied. The UK supported Denmark, in addition giving their opinion that a list would not be helpful. 69

70 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Austria said that although this was outside of the Directive this definition was helpful, and that perhaps CEN could consider looking at a relevant definition for non-electrical equipment. CEN agreed to consider. Mr O Riordan (CEN/CLC Consultant) said that he had considered this approach but thought that it might lead to more confusion, as this equipment did not fall under the ATEX Directive. Germany and Spain agreed. In conclusion, Mr Eardley said that such equipment was outside of the scope of the Directive because it did not have its own ignition source. As such, although CEN might want to consider whether a definition for such equipment might be useful for manufacturers, this was not an issue for the Committee. Action IV The Commission agreed to provide a Clarification sheet for the Committee to consider (four weeks for comments) for uploading to the ATEX web-site. (Annex 4) 3. Re: Interaction of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC with other Directives such as the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) and the Gas Appliances Directive (GAD) (UK) The UK explained their concerns arising from the fact that the ATEX Directive excluded: - equipment intended for use in domestic and non-commercial environments where potentially explosive atmospheres may only rarely be created, solely as a result of the accidental leakage of fuel gas; This led to the conclusion that where the leakage from such equipment was not fuel gas that it was therefore within the scope of the Directive. In addition, there was also the revision of the LVD to consider, where there is currently an exclusion for: - equipment for use in explosive environments; which also appeared to require comments by those present. The Chair asked for the reaction of Members on the first point. Austria said that other such domestic appliances were also excluded from the ATEX Directive given that they were not intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere. The safety aspects of such equipment are covered by other legislation. The ATEX Directive did appear to apply in respect of gas appliances for industrial purposes, as the GAD excluded such industrial products. Germany, UK, France and Orgalime agreed with this view. It was recognised that there were variances in the translation of this part of the text of the Directive. However, this did not affect the support of the Committee for the general interpretation. Action V 70

71 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Commission to draft a Clarification sheet for circulation with four weeks provided for comments. (Annex 5) 3.1 Revision of the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) 72/23/EC Mr Hilpert (DG ENTR) explained that he was the official responsible for policy management of this Directive, which was currently in the process of revision. He indicated that there had been some discussion as to whether the exclusion, which currently provided the interface with the ATEX Directive, required revision: - equipment for use in explosive environments; and invited those present to give their views. France said that the ATEX Directive under EHSR also covered the hazards dealt with by the LVD. Austria agreed that the application would depend on the level of detail but said that the two sets of requirements were currently similar. Germany asked whether the future relationship between the ATEX Directive and the LVD could be considered in the same way as that to the Machinery Directive. Orgalime agreed, and asked for the Commission to consider if it would be possible to amend so that only one Directive applied to a product, containing all requirements. The Chair suggested a tour de table, but agreed to give the opportunity to those present to provide their considered response after the meeting. Mr Hilpert gave three examples of the way forward: 1. No change; 2. Delete exclusion so that the specificity clause applies; 3. Explicitly exclude the ATEX Directive UK Option 2. Sweden Option 2, but could agree to Option 3. Finland Liaison required, perhaps Option 3. Austria Option 3, but could agree to Option 2 Netherlands Option 2 Luxembourg Option 3, but could agree to Option 2. Italy Option 2. Ireland Option 2. France Liaison required (Informed after the meeting Option 2) 71

72 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Spain Option 2. Germany- Option 2, but could agree to Option 3. Denmark Liaison required (Informed after the meeting Option 2). Norway Option 3, but could agree Option 2. Slovenia Liaison required. Czech Republic Liaison required (Informed after the meeting - Option 2) Hungary Liaison required, perhaps Option 2. Notified Bodies No specific preferences. CLC Option 1. CEN/CLC Consultant Option 2. Orgalime Option 3. The Chair re-iterated that Members would be provided with four weeks from the date of the meeting to consider their positions with colleagues and to provide a more substantive contribution if this was necessary. Action VI Members to provide their considered option to the Commission as to how to deal with the interface to the Low Voltage Directive and action required in respect to the relevant exclusion under that Directive. 4. Equipment in a closed vessel UK Given the agreement to delete the relevant part of the ATEX Guide this was considered dealt with. 5. Paint Spray Booth DE Germany said that it still received questions as to whether such booths were within the scope of the ATEX Directive. Mr Eardley said that the Commission view was clear and a letter had been issued to the relevant Technical Committee to the effect that these were outside the scope, although the equipment for use inside may be included. Mr Riekeles (CEN-Rapporteur Machinery) requested, that nevertheless European harmonised standards for machines outside the scope of the ATEX Directive, but with internal explosion risks such as spray booth, should be listed in the OJEC under the directive 94/9/EC. Mr Eardley did not agree that such a listing should take place, as these machines were outside of scope of the ATEX Directive. There was general agreement to this view. Action VII 72

73 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received. (Annex 6) 6. Pump/Electrical motor combinations DE Germany introduced this item that sought to clarify the way in which the conformity assessment was to be undertaken in respect of combinations of electrical and non-electrical equipment. In short, where the items could not be separated Germany considered the integrated whole as electrical equipment for conformity assessment purposes. Where this combination consisted of individual items of equipment then each was to be assessed independently according to its characteristics. CLC agreed, with reference to Chapters and of the ATEX Guide. This view was supported by those present. Action VIII Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received. (Annex 7) 7. Plastic Containers and Tanks DE Germany explained that the view of the Committee was sought as to whether such items fell within the scope of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. It was their view that this was not the case given that they did not have their own inherent source of ignition. Austria and the UK agreed. The former pointing out that they could be components, but as a general rule they did not fall within scope. Action IX Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received. (Annex 8) 8. Application of Directive 94/9/EC to inerting systems DE Germany introduced their paper that considered the application of the Directive to inerting systems. In summary, the view was that they are not protective systems but that components of such a system may fall within scope. The Netherlands agreed. CLC considered that they may be safety related devices according to Article 1(2) of the ATEX Directive. The Commission services concurred, and suggested using this as a basis for a Clarification sheet but deleting the final sentence of the paper, which appeared not to be relevant. Italy considered that they were covered by the Directive. Denmark highlighted that such systems can be placed on the market as one complete system. 73

74 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Germany agreed to consider if inerting systems might also be safety related devices and make this point clear in their paper. They concurred that the paper should be re-drafted and submitted as a draft for a Clarification sheet. Action X Germany to re-draft and submit to the Commission services. The Commission then to circulate and upload after four weeks for comments. II QUESTIONS OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT 1. Requirements of Annex IV and Annex VII of the Directive FR France introduced this item by explaining that certain manufacturers produced the same equipment for use across zones and hence, according to the Directive, may be required to apply both production and product quality assurance to the same product. The question was raised as to whether those present considered that, if a manufacturer fulfils Annex IV they are also judged to have met the requirements for Annex VII? The Netherlands pointed out that there was already a Clarification sheet issued by the ExNBG, but that different practices continued. It was agreed that this be discussed further by the Notified Bodies, and for the ExNBG to consider a single practice, which might either involved a single report with two annexes or two different reports, and report to the next meeting. Action XI ExNBG to discuss and report to the next meeting of the ATEX Standing Committee. 2. EC Declaration of Conformity NL The Netherlands introduced this item on the Agenda by requesting clarification of the information to be included on the EC DoC. In particular, where appropriate, whether this can include the number of the Notified Body involved in the production stage. Austria was of the opinion that it was only the number of the Notified Body that issued the Type Examination Certificate required on the DoC as described at Annex 10 of the Directive. Germany and the Commission agreed. The Netherlands requested a Clarification sheet. Action XII Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received. (Annex 9) 3. Trade Agents and Quality Assurance NL 74

75 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 The Netherlands explained that it was seeking the view of the Committee on the practice of trade agents who make equipment under their own name but do not manufacture the equipment. Given that they become the de facto manufacturer, the question was how were they able to comply, where relevant, to the need for Quality Assurance relating to the product. Spain agreed with the position of the Netherlands that, if the trade agent takes on the responsibility of manufacturer then it must comply with all of the provisions of the Directive. Mr Eardley agreed that this was a difficult topic, and that the Commission services were aware of differing practices by Notified Bodies in this respect. The representative of the ExNBG agreed that the position was not clear. After some discussion, Mr Eardley concluded that this was a horizontal issue, and as such could not be dealt with by the Standing Committee alone. It was proposed that this be raised with colleagues in-house in order to arrive at a common solution. Action XIII Commission to discuss with colleagues and report back to the next ATEX Standing Committee. 4. Retention of Documentation NL The Netherlands explained that manufacturers, in particular larger companies, held a good deal of documentation in respect of their production processes. A result of this was that a proportionate approach should be developed as to what Member States considered reasonable for them to retain for the ten years following placing the last piece of equipment onto the EC market. The proposal was supported, with the inclusion of a caveat that the information retained must, as a minimum, be sufficient for authorities to assess that the relevant quality assurance module was complied with during production. Action XIV Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received. (Annex 10) 5. Proposal for a guideline on ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Annex II Clause 1.0.6(b) UK The UK pointed out that the requirement for multiple instructions for small items of equipment might, in the correct circumstances, not be required, and asked the view of the Committee. Denmark and Spain responded to the effect that the Directive requires one set of instructions per unit, and it was difficult to consider how this requirement in the Directive could not be applied. The UK agreed to amend the proposal and re-submit. Action XV UK to amend the proposal and submit to the next ATEX Standing Committee. 6. In what language(s) must the instructions referred to in Clause 1.0.6(a) of Annex II of the Directive be supplied? UK 75

76 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Presented by the UK most Members considered that this paper was not necessary and might lead to confusion on the part of both the manufacturer and user. This was therefore withdrawn. Action XVI The Commission agreed to provide details of ECJ Judgements of languages for the Members of the Committee. 7. Petrol pumps are assembled by the manufacturer from various components, most of which come under Directive 94/9/EC as separate items. The compliance of these components with the requirements of the Directive must therefore by certified by their manufacturers by means of a conformity declaration. Must the petrol pump manufacturer nevertheless complete a conformity declaration within the meaning of Directive 94/9/EC for the petrol pump as a whole? DE Germany introduced this item by asking if a formal Declaration or Conformity Assessment was required for petrol pumps assembled from CE marked equipment where no further hazards are identified by the manufacturer. The UK said that this had already been discussed on a number of occasions. The assembly of petrol pumps was considered sufficiently complicated that an assessment was required for the completed assembly. Spain was of the opinion that if it was a matter of assembling components then it was to be considered as such. The representative from the Notified Bodies disagreed, and said that a global certification was required covering the motor and electrical supply. Mr Eardley pointed out that it had been concluded by majority consensus that petrol pumps may, in general, be considered Category 2. In response to a query from Italy it was clarified that, if this Category is suitable, then Notified Body intervention was required. Action XVII Commission to prepare a Clarification sheet for circulation (four weeks) and uploading if no comments received (see Annex 11). III QUESTIONS OF TRANSITION 1. Replacement safety motors and placing on the market FR France summarised their question as follows manufacturers have replacement motors noncompliant to ATEX Directive 94/9/EC which are then outsourced to stockists who are then responsible for providing and installing these motors. Can these be used after 30 th June 2003? All present agreed that, as they had already been placed onto the market and are ready for use i.e. their safety and performance characteristics are not altered when put into service their putting into service after 30 th June 2003 was acceptable. 2. Lease and rental of repaired equipment NL 76

77 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 The Netherlands sought the same clarification for equipment which is first leased before the end of the transition period. It was agreed that such equipment can be leased after the end to the transition period as they are deemed to have been first placed onto the market prior to the end of the transition period. 3. Placing on the market UK The UK asked for clarification as to whether (finished, ready for use) equipment leaving the place of manufacture and being placed in stock and available for sale could be considered as having been placed on the market. It was already clear that such equipment sold on down the distribution chain e.g. via authorised representative or other intermediary was considered to have been placed on the market. However, there were cases when the distribution chain was part of the commercial chain of the manufacturer rather than a separate organisation. Footnote 31 of the Commission s Guide to the New and Global Approach seems to recognise this situation and make it clear that equipment moving down this type of distribution chain could also be considered as having been placed on the market. The Commission agreed that the Guide did indeed allow for such an eventuality although market surveillance authorities would need to ensure that a transaction had taken place even if the equipment was not as such sold. All agreed that this was not an easy issue but one that had to be considered by the market surveillance authorities of the Member States on a case-by-case basis. In effect, there was a general burden of proof on the manufacturer to show that the equipment had been given to the authorised representative with the real intention of distribution and use rather than a mechanism of treatment of stocks. In response to a query raised by Spain, the Commission services confirmed that the term placing onto the market and put into service was not inclusive i.e. both conditions did not have to be met in order for the Directive to apply. IV QUESTIONS ON ATEX GUIDE Errors in the DE Translation DE Germany had provided a number of errors identified in the Germany translation of the ATEX Guidance notes. It was agreed that these would be dealt with under Action Progress on Standardisation ATEX/03/ CEN Report Mr Hakimi of CEN referred to the report presented to the Standing Committee. In short twelve standards had been finalised with twenty-seven at formal vote stage. Most of these should be available by June. Close liaison continued with the CEN Consultant and 33% of standards had now reached the stage of formal vote. A further seventeen were at Enquiry stage and twenty-six were still in draft. 77

78 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 In response to the Commission letter to CEN regarding mills both CEN TC 305 WG 2 and TC 153 had agreed to take on the work with further work being transferred by TC 151. This was considered a satisfactory state of affairs. 4.2 CEN TC 305 Report Professor Radant (Chair - CEN TC 305) provided a background report (attached at Annex 12). In summary, there were fifteen active members of the pool of thirty-five in the TC providing different standards. He emphasised the links to other Directives, in particular the Machinery Directive and said that they were considering to prepare a report to guide the manufacturer through the different standards. He also commented on the make-up of the ATEX sector and the findings of the RASE project where 90% had less than 500 employees. This re-affirmed the need to provide as much practical guidance as possible. Mr Eardley welcomed the report and congratulated both parties on the increased pace of progress over recent months. 4.3 CLC Report ATEX/03/1/5-5.9 Mr Czyz (Chair CLC TC 31) referred to the papers provided. In addition, he emphasised the need for the national committees to become more involved in the work of IEC given the recent agreement on parallel voting. In response to a perceived lack of co-operation with the Notified Bodies, the Notified Bodies representative (Mr Piquette) pointed out that most of the work was now being undertaken in IEC. 4.4 CEN/CLC Consultant Report Mr O Riordan said that he could agree to the reports as presented, and informed the Committee that he could now see further progress being made in CEN with respect to standards delivered by TC 305. In response to a question as to how to introduce categorisation into the IEC he responded (supported by CLC) that the Dresden Agreement required that the work first be offered to IEC and that they were bound by the parallel voting procedure. Progress on cross-referencing of CLC Standards with the EHSRs Mr Vetsuypens (CLC) said that the CLC Technical Board had now decided not to agree to provide these cross-references as CENELEC Technical Reports. However, in response to a letter from DG Enterprise, CLC had responded that, within the contractual framework, this could be supplied as a separate document but for Commission use only. He informed those present that this had been discussed at the recent 98/34/EC Committee and it was his opinion that this was the correct mechanism to take things forward. The Notified Bodies representative responded that the lack of a cross-reference was a real handicap to the work of the conformity assessment bodies. In answer to a query raised by Austria, CLC confirmed that the response had indicated that this document would be for Commission use only. 78

79 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 Spain said that it was very disappointed with the current position and the lack of such a crossreference did not help transparency of the standardisation process. The representative referred to the work ongoing in the Council regarding the Machinery Directive where there was a proposal to put this requirement into the Directive. The Chair confirmed that this was the case, and agreed that this might the best solution as it meant that any standard not containing a cross-reference would then not be accepted for publication. It was highlighted that the practice in CEN was patchy with some Technical Committees providing this information and others not. It was the Chair s view that this should be dealt with at a horizontal level but the Pressure Equipment sector had already changed its mandate requiring such a crossreference. Mr Eardley suggested that, if possible, the Commission would envisage to put the available checklists prepared by the CENELEC technical bodies onto the Commission web-site provided that CENELEC would deliver this information. CLC agreed to consider if this was a possibility. In response to an intervention by Orgalime a number of Committee Members pointed out that harmonised standards only cover all relevant EHSRs, and not all. Mr Eardley suggested that there was still all to gain if the CENELEC Technical Board were to change its decision (which was taken on the basis of a finely balanced majority decision). The Standing Committee agreed that this should happen and CLC accepted to present this at their next Technical Board meeting. Those present, especially the Member State representatives, were asked to discuss the situation with their corresponding national representatives on the Technical Board. Action XVIII CLC to consider whether the Checklists can be made available to the Commission Action XIX CLC to raise this issue at the next CLC Technical Board and report to the next ATEX Standing Committee. 4.5 Publication of Standards in the OJEC Mr Eardley informed the Members of the Committee that the latest publication of harmonised standards had been published on 13 th December 2002 (OJ C 310). One error had been identified in the Italian translation of the title to EN This would be corrected in the next publication. There were now nine non-electrical and twenty electrical harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. 5. Co-operation between Notified Bodies (Oral Report) The representative of the ExNBG explained the difficulties faced by this Group in the light of no administrative support being available. As a direct result of this only one meeting had taken place 79

80 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 (9 th & 10 th September 2002) and no Clarification sheets were available for discussion at the Standing Committee. The Group was working under increasing pressure at the moment given the imminent arrival of the mandatory application of the Directive. However, it had made efforts to ensure that the international scene was catered for in this meeting as observers from IECEx had been present, as well as other trade blocs. The next meeting was foreseen for 16 th and 17 th June Treatment on non-eea manufacturers FR ATEX/03/1/6.1 A general report had been received by the French authorities on problems relating to the Quality Assurance audits for non-eea manufacturers. It was agreed to request more details of these complaints which would then be passed to the relevant national authority. 5.2 ExNBG Clarification Sheets (not cleared) ATEX/03/1/6.2-3 Mr Eardley introduced this item by explaining that a specific complaint had been received from a manufacturer that was based on the differing treatment of vacuum pumps. In essence this complaint related to the standard EN and its relation to the Directive. Whilst further details could not be provided those present were asked for the comments in respect of clause 5.4 of this standard: Where the ignition hazard assessment has shown that the effective ignition source can only occur during rare malfunctions category 1 equipment shall be protected by at least a single type of protection. The UK representative, also a member of CEN TC 305 WGS responsible for this standard, said that this was based on a first principle of constructional safety and then adding a second level of protection. The Notified Bodies representative agreed that this was a possibility, by using intrinsic safety. The CEN/CLC Consultant added that one had to consider this in the light of the definition of a rare malfunction defined at of the standard. Mr Eardley summarised that it would appear that there was agreement to the standard, taking into account the risk assessment to be carried out by the manufacturer. 6. Progress on implementation of ATEX in the candidate countries Mr Eardley said that the Czech Republic was currently the only candidate with an operational ATEX sectoral annex. However, another three were operational without this sector (but including, EMC, LVD and Machinery) with Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia. Another four were in the administrative process prior to full operation with Estonia, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia. Negotiations were ongoing with Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. For further information see In addition, a recent PECA Workshop had taken place, which provided details such as contact points and responsible Ministries, available at 80

81 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY IECEx Presentation This was provided by Uwe Klausmeyer (PTB). In response Orgalime said that this was a very good opportunity to have one test against a common standard and appreciated the approach. Netherlands supported the very high requirements for the members of the scheme which provided confidence in the system. The representative asked if this scheme also covered electrical safety. Mr Klausmeyer said that it did not, and that other provisions covered this aspect. CLC said that it had a good deal of sympathy with the approach, and repeated their request for those present to seek to ensure that Europe becomes more involved in the development of IEC standards. Austria pointed out the difficulties in regime with respect to electrical safety and the fact that Europe was self-declaration whilst the US required third-party intervention. Mr Klausmeyer also informed those present that the current CEN standard for Quality Assurance had been adopted by the Group and as such this aspect was directly aligned to the ATEX Directive. Mr Eardley explained that they had provided IECEx with the opportunity to give a presentation at the meeting as it ensured that the international developments with respect to explosion protective equipment were kept in mind. As far as the interface between this and the ATEX Directive to be considered, as was suggested by the IECEx rapporteur, this would need to be discussed with colleagues before a definitive answer could be given. Action XX Commission services to discuss possible future work to consider the inter-relationship between the IECEx scheme and the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. 8. ATEX 137 Directive Mr Carruthers (DG EMPL) explained that the Directive 1999/92/EC became mandatory on the 1 st July 2003, and that a Guide was currently under development. The next meeting of the steering group for this guide was to take place on the 27 th March (now confirmed) and those present were invited to attend. In response to one query it was clarified that as the Directive sets out minimum requirements Member States are allowed to put more stringent provisions in place and therefore harmonised standards were not an option. There was a requirement in Directive 99/92/EC for the notification of national measures within scope. 9. AOB 81

82 IX. 6-7 FEBRUARY 2003 None. 10. Date of next Meeting A date was not set but it is likely to take place towards the end of October or the start of November. 82

83 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, 4 th December 2003 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mr Eardley (Chair) welcomed those present, and apologised for the cancellation of the second day originally proposed. However, the objective would be to complete the agenda by close of play. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/03/2/1 The draft agenda was agreed. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/03/2/2 Approved with one amendment. Mr Fuente (DG EMPL) pointed out that there was a requirement in Directive 99/92/EC for the notification of national measures within scope. It was agreed that this section would be amended accordingly. Following the meeting it was found that the action points (from Action XIII) had been incorrectly numbered. These were amended as appropriate. The Chair went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I The UK paper regarding filters had been used as a basis for a Clarification Sheet and this was now uploaded to the ATEX internet site. Action II The Clarification Sheet with respect to an amendment to the footnote of Table 2 to the Commission Guidance notes to the Directive had been uploaded to the ATEX internet site.

84 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Action III No further linguistic errors had been provided by Committee members. Then German note on this issue is to be taken into account in the ongoing work to revise the Commission Guidance notes. Action IV The paper on Simple Apparatus had been uploaded to the Commission internet site as a Clarification Sheet. Action V A Clarification Sheet on equipment intended for use in domestic environments had been uploaded to the ATEX internet site. Action VI Further comments on the interface between ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC and any future Commission proposal for revision had been provided by Committee members. From the responses received it did appear clear that the view of the majority was that this should be dealt with by means of a specificity clause and not explicit exclusion. Action VII A Clarification Sheet on the relationship between ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and paint-spray booths had been uploaded to the Commission s internet site. Action VIII The draft Clarification Sheet on the treatment of pump and electric motor combinations had consequently been put onto the ATEX internet site. Action IX As agreed the paper on plastic containers and tanks had been uploaded to the relevant internet site. Action X Germany had provided a revised paper giving their view on how inerting systems were to be considered and this was provided as an item for discussion later in the agenda. Action XI Mr Shearman (Chair - ExNBG) was asked to provide clarification on how Notified Bodies dealt with the application of the conformity assessment procedures at Annex IV and VII during his report later in the programme. Action XII A Clarification Sheet had been prepared on the information to be put onto the EC Declaration of Conformity as a result of the discussion at the previous meeting and, after circulation and no comments received, had been uploaded to the internet site. Action XIII 84

85 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 The Chair acknowledged that this was a difficult issue and one that had been discussed with other parts of the Commission services. It was pointed out that there as already work underway to consider horizontal aspects or the New and Global approaches and anticipated that this may provide a solution. The members were informed that as soon as a stable document was available this would be circulated. Action XIV A Clarification sheet on the minimum requirements for the retention of documentation had been prepared, cleared electronically and uploaded to the ATEX internet site. Action XV No further paper had been provided by the UK on this issue. Action XVI The Chair highlighted that relevant information on language requirements had been circulated as agreed at the last meeting. An informal paper on other relevant findings was also available for members to consider. Action XVII A paper had been prepared on the treatment of petrol pumps as assemblies, distributed for comments and subsequently uploaded to the internet site. Actions XVIII- XIX The Chair asked that the CENELEC representative provide information on progress towards crossreferencing later in the meeting. Action XX None. 3. Questions Raised Draft Clarification Sheet Internal and External potentially explosive atmospheres ATEX/03/2/3.1 The Chair introduced this draft proposal as the result of work undertaken following discussion at the last ATEX Standing Committee on how to deal with equipment with both an internal and external potentially explosive atmosphere. On an informal basis and outside of their formal role CEN TC 305 WG 2 had agreed to consider the issue and to draft a paper for consideration. The draft sheet was based on the outcome of this work and its principles had been supported by the CEN TC 305 Plenary Committee. In summary of the paper it was indicated that the categorisation and hence the treatment of equipment should be considered as a result of the ignition risk assessment and deal with both the external atmosphere and that connected to the equipment. Such equipment might therefore be 85

86 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 categorised by considering each part either in contact with, or connected to a potentially explosive atmosphere. The views of the Committee were requested. The UK said that whilst is supported the general principles of the paper it considered that further work was required with respect to how a Notified Body should treat equipment providing for different categories. This was supported by the Chair-ExNBG and the CENELEC representative. The Chair concluded that, although the paper was considered helpful it might be premature to upload it to the public internet until further guidance was considered and included. Volunteers were asked to work on guidance on how Bodies should treat equipment with different categories for inclusion into the paper. The UK and the Chair-ExNBG volunteered to do this work. Action I A revised paper is to be provided by the UK and Chair-ExNBG within eight weeks via the Commission services for electronic distribution and clearance by ATEX Standing Committee members. Draft Clarification Sheet - Assemblies ATEX/03/2/3.2 This was introduced as the second issue that had been raised at the previous meeting and, again, had been considered by the members of CEN TC 305 WG 2. The Chair said that this appeared to be very much in line with the relevant table in the Commission guidance notes to the directive already approved by the formal Committee but there had been one part of the text on which those involved had disagreed. The disagreement was with respect to the footnote. It appeared to suggest that an assembly of compliant parts (in particular, when components are used) would a require further conformity assessment even if the assembler s ignition risk assessment found that the assembly as a whole did not show that any further EHSRs (or those already complied with by the manufacturers of the individual equipment) needed to be considered. The Chair pointed out that this was not in line with the table in the Commission guidance nor, in his opinion, the general practice that if the ignition risk assessment showed that nothing further was required with respect to relevant Community legislation then all he/ she was required to do was to CE mark the assembly, sign a new EC Declaration of Conformity for the equipment/ assembly and provide the instructions for safe use. The Chair-ExNBG considered that the footnote was valid on the basis that the assembly was now judged as a piece of equipment and as such all relevant provisions of the Directive had to be applied, including the relevant conformity assessment procedure. The UK supported this view, but said that it might accept if this guidance was applied to equipment group categories 2 and 3, but not 1. Norway, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, France and Spain agreed with the paper but not to the footnote, concurring with the view of the Commission services. 86

87 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Italy asked for it to be minuted that this guidance need only be considered with respect to equipment and not to installations which were outside of scope and not to be CE marked. CENELEC judged that the paper required further work and that it seemed necessary to explain the difference between an assembly and an installation. Action II The Chair agreed to discuss the content of the paper with colleagues and report back to the Committee, as this considered general rather than sectoral principles. Notified Bodies and receipt of technical documentation ATEX/03/2/3.3 (COM) ATEX/03/2/3.4 (NL) It was considered necessary to consider both the first paper from the Commission services and the letters from the Netherlands together, as they both dealt with the conformity assessment procedure at Article 8.1 (b)(ii) and the receipt of technical documentation by a Notified Body after a manufacturer has applied internal control of production (Annex VIII). The Draft Clarification Sheet considered whether a Notified Body needed to be notified for this activity, and if so if reference was required to Annex VIII, which was only relevant for the manufacturer. In addition, the question was considered as to how long the Notified Body was required to retain the technical documentation, which was not dealt with in the text of the Directive, but was generally taken to be ten years after the last piece of equipment had been placed onto the market. It was judged that this needed to be looked at as the manufacturer was also under the obligation to retain the technical documentation for the same period of time and, as such, red tape needed to be cut to a minimum. The Chair-ExNBG said that there may be Notified Bodies that did not want to provide these services and as such if this was not mentioned in the scope of any of the appointed Bodies this could be confusing. In addition, it was clarified that the Notified Bodies retained the information and did not hand it back to the manufacturer on request. After some discussion it was agreed that Member states and relevant candidates should, when notifying their bodies, indicate whether this procedure was one that their appointment wished to participate in. It was also accepted that future notification would refer to Retention of technical documentation Article 8.1 (b)(ii) and not to Annex VIII. Further discussion then took place on the length of time that the Body was required to keep the technical documentation. It was agreed that, in general, this should be ten years after the placing on the market of the last piece of equipment. It was also suggested and supported that this may be in electronic form, so long as the manufacturer ensured that the information provided was both accessible and legible for the period concerned. Action III The Commission will delete the references to Annex VIII in the list of Notified Bodies and amend to show Article 8.1 (b)(ii). Action IV 87

88 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 The Commission services to provide a Clarification sheet with respect to the possibility to provide this documentation in electronic form, given the above pre-conditions. The Netherlands then drew the attention of the Committee to a further point in their paper, to the effect that it had been noticed that a number of Notified Bodies referred to category 3 in the scope, which was incorrect. Action V The Commission services to delete mention of Category 3 in the list of Notified Bodies on the ATEX internet site. Application of the Directive to valves ATEX/03/2/3.5 ATEX/03/2/3.6 The Chair introduced the above two papers. The first was highlighted as evidence of the confusion in the market-place on how to deal with valves, in particular manual valves under the Directive 94/9/EC. The second was tabled as a set of questions raised by French manufacturers, the first two of which dealt with the same subject. It was outlined that it was clear that valves may fall under the scope of the directive, including those with springs and certain types of bonding. However, the question was raised as to whether simple manual valves, whose only source of ignition stemmed from a static charge build-up by the interaction of the valve with the media throughput and therefore requiring earthing were also covered. The answer appeared to stem from the meaning of own source of ignition, as it was clear that a parallel example could be that of pipes, which were earthed for the same reasons but were considered outside of scope. The Chair Ex-NBG asked for consideration to be given with respect to the materials used, and if there might not be a lowering of the safety level should such simple valves be excluded. Both Germany and Italy considered that a definition of simple apparatus would be helpful. The Netherlands pointed out that there was already a clarification sheet explaining simple apparatus, and as such manufacturers could consider this when assessing if their valves fell within scope of the directive. The Chair suggested that, if it was considered that this was not sufficient, a definition could be developed for inclusion into a non-electrical standard. He also highlighted that this was not an issue of safety, as all products, even those outside of scope of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, would need to be safe for intended use in a hazardous environment, according to the relevant use Directive. In summary, the Chair concluded that the manufacturer was always necessary for a manufacturer to consider own source of ignition alongside the other criteria wan assessing whether a valve was inside of scope. In general, the majority of those present considered that a simple valve, where the only source of ignition identified arose from the build-up of static charge by interaction with the media going through the valve were outside of scope of the Directive. There was already a reference available to simple apparatus, but if the Committee considered that a reference standard was required then the Commission services would ask CEN to include this in their work programme. 88

89 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 There was also the possibility to ask CENELEC to discuss the issue of a static charge the Commission. In particular, CENELEC TC 31 has the technical report TR related to Electrostatics - Code of practice for the avoidance of hazards due to static electricity. On the basis of this outcome, it was agreed that the first two questions raised by the French authorities had been dealt with. The Committee then turned its attention to the third question from CLATEX with respect to user responsibility. The Chair pointed out that the scope of the Committee s responsibility did not cover use and hence was unable to provide an interpretation of its requirements. He asked the representative from DG EMPL to give his view. In short, Mr Fuente (DG EMPL) said that it was clear the employer was required not only to give a risk assessment on the basis of the provisions of Directive 99/92/EC but also the relevant framework directive. The Chair summarised by indicating the draft response therefore appeared to be correct although did not provide sufficient detail. The discussion then turned to the following question as to whether flexible pipes intended for use in potentially explosive environments were within scope of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. It was agreed that these did not have their own source of ignition although the user requirements would need to apply. Finally the Committee considered the question of marking of small components as outlined in the paper provided by the French authorities. It was agreed that this was broadly correct although the word should needed to be replaced by other terminology which did not seem to indicate that standards were mandatory. Action VI Commission services to prepare draft clarification sheet on valves for circulation and uploading to the ATEX internet site. Application of the Directive to inerting systems (DE) ATEX/03/2/3.7 Germany introduced their paper which had been re-formulated since discussion at the previous meeting. The German delegation expressed the view that such equipment could be equipment if it had its own ignition source but it was not generally to be considered as a protective system. It was also judged that it was unlikely to be a safety device according to Article 1(2) of the Directive. France was of the opinion that, whilst it could agree to it not being a protective system it could be a safety device. The Chair asked if both Germany and France could develop a paper to this effect, providing examples of where such systems could be considered as safety devices. Action VII 89

90 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Germany and France to provide the Commission services with a draft Clarification Sheets on the application of the Directive to inerting systems to be circulated to members for a four week period after which if no comment received then to be uploaded to the ATEX internet site. PED Working Group Papers (i) Flame Arrestors ATEX/03/2/3.8 (ii) Explosion risk Mr Steininger (DG ENTR) introduced himself as the official with policy responsibility for the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23/EC. He introduced the two papers above as the result of discussions in the PED Draft Working Group, the first on the treatment of flame arrestors under the PED and the second dealing with additional provisions that may need to be applied where a risks of explosion exists. No comments were given by the Committee with respect to the first paper. In relation to the subject area covered by the second, the Chair considered that further clarification was required with respect to the aspects covered by ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, namely that it did not cover equipment handling or processing liquids that were explosive by their nature but intended for environments which were potentially explosive (mists, vapours, gasses and dust mixed with air. The Committee thanked Mr Steininger for the information and in return it was indicated that the Committee would be informed of any future developments in the PED sectors that may involve equipment also under the scope of the ATEX Directive. Questions (UK) ATEX/03/2/3.10 Mr Tydesley (UK) introduced a number of questions with respect to the intended use of equipment falling under the scope of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. In response the Chair pointed out that the majority if not all of the issues raised were in respect of the use of such equipment, and as such did not fall within the terms of reference of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. It was understood that there was a broad interface between the two Directives and, on this occasion, given that DG EMPL was present, these would be discussed briefly. However, in the future, these issues should be discussed with DG EMPL directly. Mr Fuente (DG EMPL) gave a general presentation on the Community framework legislation that applied, and the responsibilities that were clearly defined for both the manufacturer (under Article 95) and the employer (Article 137). 4. Progress on Standardisation CEN TC 305 Report ATEX/03/2/4 No representative of CEN TC 305 was present. However, the Committee members were asked to consider the document provided and also the report from the CEN Secretariat. The Chair summarised the position as well-developed since the previous Standing Committee and congratulated those working on non-electrical standardisation under the ATEX Directive for the good progress made. He asked the position with respect to the potential for putting the Quality Assurance standard EN onto an international setting. 90

91 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Mr O Riordan (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) explained that this was difficult at the moment, as there was no equivalent committee in ISO to CEN TC 305. At present CEN CMC were actively pursuing another route into ISO and would inform the committee on progress. CEN Secretariat Report ATEX/03/2/5 ATEX/03/2/5.1 ATEX/03/2/5.2 Mr Hakime referred to the above documents. Following the meeting the CEN Secretariat confirmed that there is the possibility for EN to be adopted at the international level by ISO even though no equivalent Technical Committee exists. Mr Hakime will keep the Commission services informed of progress. CLC TC 31 Report ATEX/03/2/6 Mr Czyz (Chair CLC TC 31) referred to the papers provided. He indicated that work had slowed in recent months given to the agreement with IEC and work being transferred to an international level. According this agreement CENELEC could start a new work if such work has not started in IEC. The main task of CENELEC TC31 officers is the checking of EX IEC standards drafts in order to verify if all EHSRs of 94/9/EC directive are fulfilled. If not, TC31 prepare common modifications for IEC standard. For the time being five standards of IEC series will supersede relevant CENELEC standards. CENELEC Consultant Report Verbal Report Mr O Riordan said that he could agree to the reports as presented, and informed the Committee that he could now see further progress being made in CEN with respect to standards delivered by TC 305. This was evidenced by the number of standards either published or at an advanced stage of development. Question: Standards - Presumption of Conformity (NL) ATEX/03/2/7 Mr De Vries (Netherlands) presented the above paper which advocated three recommendations, as follows: (1) The year and amendments that apply to harmonised standards or technical references when applied to a product should be referenced in the EC Declaration of Conformity; (2) Where relevant the information in the first indent should be included in the Type Examination Certificate; (3) Where substantive changes to the state of the art occur which require a re-evaluation of the conformity of the product to the EHSRs, the Notified body should inform the manufacturer. With respect to (1) and (2), there was general agreement by the Committee and it was considered that these were normal practice. There was some discussion as to whether the published lists of standards made it clear that the date of cessation of conformity applied to both the referenced standard and amendments. In relation to the third indent, the Chair explained that he understood the Type Examination Certificate to remain the property of the Notified Body, as such there was an implicit requirement 91

92 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 for that Notified Body to withdraw the certificate if the standard or specification referred to no longer represented alignment with the Essential Health and Safety Requirements. This view was not supported by the Chair - ExNBG, who said that the role of the Notified Body was only to issue the TEC to ensure that the type complied at the date of issue. The responsibility for compliance of the product was that of the manufacturer. The Chair agreed with this last point of view but considered that there were parallel responsibilities, that of the manufacturer to ensure that the product was compliant and that he was in receipt, where relevant, of a valid TEC. There was also that of the Notified body, which could not devolve responsibility for a Type-Examination Certificate which declared that the type met the EHSRs. If this were to be the case this would lead to a TEC, which could be thirty years old, where the state of the art had progressed substantively, still indicating that the original type was compliant with the requirements where this was clearly not the case. The UK supported the view of the Chair-ExNBG. The Commission services agreed to liaise with colleagues in other sectors and to report back on the view of other sectors. Action VIII CENELEC to consider the proforma footnotes provided with the list of standards published in the OJEU to ensure that the date of cessation of presumption of conformity applied to the referenced standard and previous editions. Action IX The Commission services to consider their view of the responsibility of a Notified Body with respect to issued Type Examination Certificates where state of the art has changed so that the type examined no longer meets the Essential Health and Safety Requirements. EN (UK) ATEX/03/2/8 The UK presented their paper which expressed concern with respect to the above standard and, in particular, as to whether it dealt with slowly expanding explosions. The delegation explained that there was concern but that it could not be substantiated that this was an issue with respect to safety until a more detailed report became available. The Chair explained that this note had already been sent to CEN TC 305 which was considering its contents. The full report would be sent as well as soon as it became available for further examination of the issues raised. The Chair explained that if there was a substantive concern with respect to safety then the appropriate procedure would be to raise a safeguard notification with respect to this standard. However, at this stage there was insufficient evidence that this was the case and so it would be pre-emptive to take this action at present. However, if the Committee considered that this was not the case then action should be bought immediately. Action X The UK to provide a more detailed report on the concerns raised, to be provided directly to CEN TC 305 copied to the Commission services. If this paper indicates substantive concerns with respect to safety then consideration to be given immediately as to whether to raise a safeguard notification. Progress on cross-referencing to EHSRs Verbal Report 92

93 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Mr Vetsuypens informed the Committee that CENELEC had now agreed in principle to providing this as a separate document to be prepared by the relevant consultant and provided to the Commission services. This agreement would be progressively applied as new standards were sent for publication but did not include standards under the Low Voltage Directive 73/23/EEC. 5. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ATEX/03/2/9 (Not available) The Chair ExNBG informed the Committee that agreement had been reached with IECEx to cooperate on technical interpretations, work more closely to align procedures and hold joint working groups where practical. The Group was relatively quiet which is probably due to high levels of work. Any questions arising are being resolved internally or informal groups of Notified Bodies as there was no time to circulate questions and wait for responses due to time pressures imposed by manufacturers and the ATEX 94/9EC deadline having passed. Clarification sheets agreed at the last meeting would be available shortly after a reference number problem is resolved. EXNBG is presently revising all clarification sheets for validity and we will be able to present a complete and indexed list shortly. The date of next meeting is 8-9 th June 2004 The present system of working with two secretariats and limited contracts was not working. I request a meeting to discuss the performance and management of EXNBG so that it could provide a valuable and transparent service. 6. Report by ATEX Adco (Verbal Report) Mr Birkhan (Austria) gave a brief summary of the first meeting of the meeting of relevant national authorities in Vienna. A number of territories had attended and this was an encouraging sign for the future. As this was the first Adco under the Directive the meeting had concentrated on setting up the procedures and the way of working of the group for the future. In this respect very good progress had been made and it had been agreed that the Chairmanship would be annual with two meetings taking place each year, one alongside the ATEX Standing Committee and the other in the territory of the Chair. A number of papers had been considered, including the obligations of Notified Bodies with respect to the receipt of technical information which had been discussed in the Standing Committee. The Committee congratulated the Austrian authorities for their efforts in ensuring a successful first meeting. Germany informed those present that it had agreed to take over the Chairmanship for 2004 and intended to hold its meeting in Berlin during June Translation would be available in a limited number of languages. The representative asked those present to contact him to ensure that all contact points were updated. The Chair thanked Germany for taking this very important work forward for the future. 93

94 X. 4 DECEMBER 2003 Draft Working Group ATEX/03/2/10 The Chair referred to the letter provided which included a list of those who had volunteered for the work in both preparing the second edition of the Commission s guidance notes to the Directive and for formulating draft Clarification sheets for the standing Committee. It was pointed out that there was an omission to the list Mr Heino Bothe from PTB. It was also explained that it was anticipated that the second draft version of the guide would be available at the end of January, and would be circulated to the Standing Committee for their comments/ observations. The work itself would be dealt with by means of small groups of volunteers who had selected issues of interest from the subjects set out in the letter and these would work independently up towards the end of January at which time their texts would be considered for incorporation into the text. Whilst the input of all Committee members was welcome it was recommended that any correspondence should be via the Working Group members to avoid any confusion. 7. ATEX 137 Directive (Verbal Report) Mr Fuente gave a verbal report on the developments to-date with respect to Directive 99/92/EC and highlighted that the guide was available on the internet to download. However, it was pointed out that this Directive provided for minimum requirements and the guide itself was directed towards national authorities. 8. AOB Safety and Controlling Devices (Verbal Report) The Chair highlighted that there had been an action point at a previous meeting to develop a Clarification sheet with respect to the treatment of safety and controlling devices on the basis of discussions at the ExNBG. This had not been done as there was now an ExNBG Decision sheet already considered by the Committee on the ATEX internet site, and little added value appeared to stem from changing this into a Clarification sheet. This was agreed. Appreciation The Committee showed its appreciation for the Austrian representative Mr Fritz Birkhan due to retire, for his hard work and efforts over previous years, wishing him an enjoyable retirement. It was commented that without his substantive contribution the Directive would not have come into mandatory effect as smoothly as it appeared to have done so. 9. Date of next meeting The date of the next meeting was proposed for the end of June or beginning of July

95 XI. 8 JULY 2004 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC Brussels, 8 th July 2004 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mr Montoya, Head of Unit G3, welcomed those present and announced that Mr David Eardley would be chairing the ATEX Standing Committee on this occasion for the last time. He introduced Mr Corrado Mattiuzzo who will take over the management of Directive 94/9/EC. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/04/1/1 The draft agenda was agreed with the only modification that all UK proposals in item 3 would be discussed together at the end of this item. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/04/1/2 The minutes were confirmed and the Chair went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I The paper concerning internal and external potentially explosive atmospheres had been provided by UK and the Chair-ExNBG. This would be discussed later at item 3. Action II After having discussed with his colleagues the draft paper dealing with assemblies the Commission had provided a slightly revised paper for consideration under item 3. Action III As agreed, the Commission has deleted the references to Annex VIII in the list of Notified Bodies and amended to show Article 8.1 (b)(ii) instead.

96 XI. 8 JULY 2004 Action IV The Commission services had uploaded the paper on retention of documentation to the ATEX internet site. Action V Due to the fact that in several member states the relevant description was too varied, the Commission services had not yet deleted mention of Category 3 in the list of Notified Bodies on the ATEX website. A more common description for all member states should be discussed during a later meeting. Action VI The Commission services had circulated a draft document on valves and subsequently uploaded the paper to the ATEX website. Action VII The draft paper on the application of the directive to inerting systems provided by Germany and France had been circulated to members for discussion. Action VIII Proforma footnotes provided with the list of standards published in the OJ would be discussed in item 4. Action IX The question regarding the responsibility of a Notified Body with respect to issued Type Examination Certificates where state of the art has changed to be discussed in item 3.7. Action X The UK provided a detailed report on the concerns raised to the Commission services. These would be discussed under item Scope of directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions 3.1 Application of the Directive to rotating mechanical seals ATEX/04/1/3.1 The UK presented their document. In short, seals intended for use in a potentially explosive atmosphere should be considered as ATEX components. Other seals should be assessed when incorporated into the equipment as part of the assessment for this equipment. Italy s view is similar to that of the UK. Seals should be regarded as components. Germany their position is supported by German manufacturers did not agree: In most cases a risk assessment according to ATEX could only be carried out on the pump. If seals are classified as ATEX components, pump manufacturers may be tempted not to make a correct risk analysis. Denmark agreed with Germany. 96

97 XI. 8 JULY 2004 Additionally, Germany pointed out that, both for inflammable and non-inflammable substances, basically the same seals were sold. France confirmed the problem, adding that manufacturers provide formally ATEX compliant products only, if their clients require them explicitly. ORGALIME/VDMA agreed and complained that this practice leads to unnecessary costs and unjustified business making. In the Commission view, seals intended for use in pumps for flammable substances fall under the scope of 94/9/EC. Therefore, a risk assessment has to be carried out as far as possible, an attestation of conformity issued, and duly drafted instructions for use will have to accompany the product. The latter would avoid that pump manufacturers have an excuse for not carrying out their part of the risk assessment. Action I UK, Germany, France and Denmark to draft a paper, which takes into account the results of the discussion. 3.2 Explosion suppression barriers in mines ATEX/04/1/3.2 The Commission introduced this paper which asked that certain protective systems be considered in respect of their treatment under the directive. CEN/TC 305 WG 5 presented an analysis, according to which explosion barriers for mines (e.g. water trough barriers, stone dust barriers) are to be considered autonomous protective systems. Germany reported about the varied opinions held in industry. Historically, water trough barriers needed to be authorized as protective systems. At present it is unclear why products, which needed to be assembled by the user, should not fall under the scope of the directive. It is actually the manufacturer s duty to instruct the user on how to assemble the product. The Commission agreed with these arguments, but underlined that they do not seem applicable to stone dust barriers. CLC Consultant O'Riordan supported WG5 position with regard to water trough barriers but would have to await the development of new standards for other types of suppression barriers to decide their suitability as harmonisation standards. The group agreed to the German proposal to wait until the relevant standards were completed. Then it would be easier to decide, if these systems could be considered as autonomous, which was one of the crucial criteria for the inclusion within the scope of directive 94/9/EC. 3.3 Interfaces to different atmospheres ATEX/04/1/3.3 The Commission said that there had been no objections to the content of this paper, it was considered helpful and it had only been withheld subject to a paper to be written on the way in which Notified bodies should treat such equipment. This latter paper was now tabled for discussion. The Netherlands proposed an amendment on page 3 regarding the potential ignition source that becomes effective. 97

98 XI. 8 JULY 2004 Germany suggested to divide the document into two parts, one regarding the interface issue (which is also subject to other clarification sheets and could be included there) and one regarding ignition sources. The Chair urged, however, for a rapid uploading of the document as it was, in order to give to the public the required answers without delay. Action II The Netherlands and Commission Services would liaise on the amended wording. The revised paper would then be uploaded on CIRCA for 4 weeks for approval or comments and then uploaded to the ATEX internet site. 3.4 Scope ATEX/04/1/3.4 The UK presented its paper intended to help manufacturers to decide whether a product falls within the scope of the directive. The group agreed that this was a good document. Regarding ATEX compliant products and the expression potential ignition source possible doubts are eliminated in part iv) of the table. The word electrical should be deleted. It had been stated that similar discussions were presently being held in CEN/TC 305 WG 3. The group agreed that parallel work should be avoided and that CEN/TC 305 should present the outcome of their discussions during the next SC meeting. The document would therefore not be uploaded. 3.5 Ignition risk ATEX/04/1/3.5 The content of this paper is directly linked to that of the previous one. It was agreed to treat the paper in the same way. 3.6 Conformity assessment ATEX/04/1/3.6 The UK stated that the content of this document had been superseded due to the outcome of the results of earlier discussion. It was therefore withdrawn. 3.7 Questions (FR) ATEX/04/1/3.7 Concerning a document to be drawn up in order to indicate fundamental changes in revised standards, the group agreed that it may be useful, but that this could not be asked from the standardisation bodies for the following reasons: it was a horizontal question, which should not be handled in a single sector no obligation could be found in the directive to require the standardisers to do so it was unclear how to define a fundamental change 98

99 XI. 8 JULY 2004 wrong conclusions could be drawn from such an indication, e.g. regarding the necessity to adapt a product or regarding the usefulness still attributable to superseded standards The idea had been suggested to involve Notified Bodies, responsible for the yearly assessment, to investigate, if the standards application is up to date. The ExNBG described the intense dispute in the field of PPE, where it had been actually decided to oblige the Notified Body, which carried out the yearly revision, to assess the issue. Nevertheless, the group considered that PPE was not directly comparable to ATEX the technical knowledge of the NB was not always given, because the - technical - type approvals had often been carried out by other NBs than those responsible for Quality management a consideration paper concerning NB obligations already exists With a view to question 3.1 how to understand the marking of equipment the group supported the French proposal for a clarification table. Action III The proposed table shall be taken up by the draft WG for the revised Guidelines. Regarding question 3.2 marking of components it had been stated that: some components could be assessed with respect to a certain category or group, others only when installed into equipment, protective system etc. in some cases, a manufacturer who wanted to use a component might have serious problems for his own risk assessment, if he had no indication about the category of the component size can definitely be a problem, which impedes marking on the product, but the information should then be given in the accompanying documentation and on the packaging Action IV A clarification sheet should be drafted by ExNBG and Commission Services, in order to facilitate the distinction of components which can be ATEX assessed and categorised. The French proposal under question 3.3 regarding supplementary marking for [ non electrical category 2 and] category 3 was not supported after the following discussion: Germany underlined that the number of a Notified Body should appear only, if the product has been certified; Italy confirmed and added that any other numbering would cause confusion UK agreed for category 3, but insisted that the number would be useful for category 2 products, the technical file of which have been deposited at a NB In the view of ExNBG a reference to the NB for category 3 products should be mentioned only in the declaration of conformity and not on the product 99

100 XI. 8 JULY 2004 The Chair stressed the lacking of traceability problems in ATEX and that according to the directive no NB number should appear on category 3 products UK and Germany indicated the existence of standards requirements, especially in EN and some non-electrical standards where such a marking is requested, most probably as a marketing tool Action V Commission Services will write to CEN and CENELEC in order to achieve the removal of those requirements; the issue was also relevant for the next ADCO meeting. In response to question 3.4 of France, the Chair and The Netherlands stated that the inconsistent marking requirements among ATEX and PE directives were a not serious problem, because in the declaration of conformity everything clarified the situation. Notwithstanding the fact that, according to France, market surveillance authorities did not always have the possibility to see the DoC, the group saw no possibility to resolve the problem. With a view to question 3.5 concerning explosive atmospheres inside machines the group agreed that a lot of issues were already covered by the sheet discussed under items 3.3 and 3.13, e.g. mills or inside-outside. It had also been stated that national legislation under directive 1999/92/EC was relevant to decide, if an area had to be zoned or not. ExNBG underlined that the Machinery Directive was unambiguous, whilst ORGALIME pointed out that electrical and non-electrical ignition sources had to be treated in the same way. Action VI The Commission Services to discuss the matter with the colleagues responsible for the machinery directive. 3.8 Inerting systems ATEX/04/1/3.8 Germany presented a paper which intended to describe the application of the directive to inerting systems. The Commission explained that the latest amendment in the paper had been added to by France following the discussion at the last meeting. Concerning this document, which has been estimated positively by the group, the Chair suggested to delete all references to the user, in order to avoid confusion with directive 1999/92/EC. Germany requested an amendment aimed at highlighting that Directive 94/9/EC applies if equipment designed to avoid ignition sources is used within the inerting system Inerting systems used during operation of plants etc. were normally not in scope of directive 94/9/EC Action VII The Commission Services would amend the document accordingly and circulate it for 4 weeks before uploading on the website. 3.9 Declaration of conformity 100

101 XI. 8 JULY 2004 ATEX/04/1/3.9 The group considered this document very useful, in particular for assemblies. However, it was clear that it could not have legally binding status as the national transpositions of the directive were the only decisive texts unless this had been incorrectly transposed. Action VIII The draft Working Group for the revised Guidelines to include the table in their text Marking ATEX/04/1/3.10 The first part of the issue dealing with correct marking of equipment has already been discussed under item 3.7, question 3.3. The Netherlands repeated that voluntary Notified Body marking should not appear on ATEX products. Generally, there was no legal impediment for the appearance of the name of the NB, but the identification number was not permitted in the voluntary sphere. ExNBG pointed out that the number of the NB was requested only in the case of production monitoring activities. The Chair invited UK to request clarification from ExNBG on how the issue is actually dealt with. The part of the paper dealing with assemblies that may have parts in different zones would be dealt with in item Notified Bodies responsibility for products with more than one category ATEX/04/1/3.11 Germany confirmed the procedure described in this draft consideration paper was already applied by, e.g. PTB. ExNBG confirmed this, but doubted if it was sufficient for the Notified Body to rely upon information from the manufacturer, considering that the NB has his own responsibilities. Action IX Germany and ExNBG to amend the paper accordingly and send it to the Commission services, which would circulate it for 4 weeks before uploading to the website Assemblies ATEX/04/1/3.12 Denmark wished to add text to this draft consideration paper to show that marking of enclosures designed for assemblies is to be located inside the enclosure, in order to avoid confusion with the final marking of the assembly. In answer to a question of the Netherlands the Chair confirmed that the present paper would be withdrawn as soon as the new one was published. Furthermore, the Chair underlined that no paper concerning the relation of Notified Bodies to assemblies yet existed. The new paper clearly stated the full responsibility of the assembler. UK announced some minor amending proposals which were circulated for consideration during the meeting (see Annex II). With respect to the last paragraph of the paper (marking), Germany and ExNBG supported by Italy and The Netherlands pointed out the need for more examples, in order to avoid misunderstandings. 101

102 XI. 8 JULY 2004 The group agreed that he paper shall be split, as marking was a specific issue which required separate consideration. Action X The first part of the paper to be uploaded to the website after the inclusion of the UK amendments and circulation for a 4 week standstill in order to receive comments. Action XI For the second part concerning marking of assemblies Germany was invited to submit proposals. A new sheet including these proposals was to be discussed during the next meeting Interface - marking ATEX/04/1/3.13 The German paper aimed at defining the decisive factor for an equipment to fall under directive 94/9/EC. The first part correlates with the interface paper (item 3.3 on the agenda), the second part contains proposals for marking to be included in the revised Guidelines. Denmark pointed out that not in zone is a misleading wording, and that a screw conveyor was not the best example, because it was only covered by the directive under certain conditions. ExNBG underlined the usefulness of the marking examples. The group agreed to split also this paper into two parts. Action XII The second part of the paper referred to marking shall be included by the draft WG in the revision of the Guidelines. Action XIII Germany was invited to explain more in detail the beginning of the first part, as to the objective of the paper. Moreover, in the fourth paragraph the words If and this equipment is covered by the Dir. 94/9/EC shall be deleted. The resulting paper would be circulated for 4 weeks for comments and then uploaded to the website. 4. Progress on standardisation 4.1 Work in CEN/TC 305 ATEX/04/1/4.1 In addition to the paper to this item, CEN stated that the explosion risk fell within the scope of the machinery directive but it was not always sufficiently addressed. Therefore, CEN had contacted the relevant TCs in order to improve the situation. 4.2 CEN Work Programme ATEX/04/1/4.2 ATEX/04/1/

103 XI. 8 JULY 2004 According to CEN, the consultant was asked to look on so called Type 4 standards, i.e. standards dealing with explosion risks but not falling under the ATEX directive (e.g. spray booths). With respect to the quality assurance standard, CEN said that they had, as yet, been unable to promote this standard at an international level. However, the Netherlands pointed out that the IEC Ex-scheme has taken up the document. UK requested CEN and CLC to co-operate more efficiently, in order to avoid conflicting standards. The consultant Mr O Riordan took note for further investigation. ORGALIME complained about a sentence in EN where marking was requested even for products having no potential ignition source, and asked for the state of play of the revision. The Chair underlined that the sentence was to be seen in relation to its context and not in isolation. The consultant confirmed an incorrect interpretation of the standard presented on behalf of ORGALIME. The representative of CEN/TC 305 assured that the issue would be clarified during the revision, which was expected to be finalised by the end of With respect to the revisions presently in the work program of CEN/TC 305, Dr Radandt explained that some standards were already in the revision process and that special attention would be drawn to applicability. The concept of inherent safety would be added to part 1 of EN In relation to allegations of shortcomings he pointed out that the scope of a standard did not necessarily cover all risks, and it should always be read taking into account the defined scope. 4.3 CENELEC status report - Work in CLC/TC 31 ATEX/04/1/4.3 In addition to the paper distributed, Mr Czyz reported about plans in CENELEC to extend the scope of TC 31 to non-electrical products. Mr Vetsuypens explained the agreement reached between CENELEC and the Commission regarding the relationship of standards to essential requirements of directives: starting with October 2004, all new harmonised standards but not those published under the Low voltage directive would have an Annex ZZ. In this annex one of three possibilities to indicate the relationship with essential requirements would be used: - declaration that all applicable essential requirements are covered, - indication of those essential requirements, which have not been covered, - indication of those essential requirements, which have been covered. No clause by clause table will be provided. CENELEC now had 28 national members and standards titles were available in all languages. 4.4 Flame arrestors standard ATEX/04/1/4.4 ATEX/04/1/5 UK presented the paper describing problems with EN and raised the question as to how a member should act if shortcomings of a standard had been identified. 103

104 XI. 8 JULY 2004 Mr O Riordan as CLC consultant, Mr Radandt as Chairman of CEN/TC 305 and the German delegation strongly recommended that the first point of contact should be the relevant standards committee, in order to have a quick response to technical problems. Concerning this specific case, Mr Radandt pointed out that the UK comments would be discussed during the WG 3 meeting of CEN/TC 305 in August which would look at the upcoming revision. Mr O Riordan, supported by Germany, added, and UK agreed, that the actual standard represents the present state of the art, and that no real safety problem had yet arisen. Mr O'Riordan agreed with the UK statement that the solution was both short and long term. In the short term the August WG meeting will appraise the university report and introduce any amendments necessary, which is the normal practice in standardisation. In the long term any major changes to the standard will depend on future research and the financing of that research. The standing committee will be kept informed of progress. With respect to the possibilities of member states to react when deficiencies in standards have been found, the Commission services clarified the following: It was always correct to refer all standards queries directly and immediately to the standardisers using the route defined in the standardisation rules. It may also be useful to inform the Standing Committee, because other member states could then share the view and become active, too. In any case, if a member state is convinced that its concerns are justified and could not or did not want to wait for standard revisions, a formal objection according to Article 6 was the only way foreseen in the directive to limit the presumption of conformity. In this case, where "a member state considers that a harmonized standard does not satisfy the relevant essential health and safety requirements", the member state shall bring the matter before the Committee set up under Directive 98/34/EC (ex 83/189/EEC). Upon receipt of this Committee's opinion, the Commission informs the Member States whether or not it is necessary to withdraw those standards from the OJ. In this phase of the formal procedure the Commission would also be assisted by the specific Standing Committee (the ATEX Committee in this case). It had been agreed that this procedure can also be applied in such a way that the reference in the OJ would not be withdrawn, but amended with a warning. This warning would indicate that the application of the standard in question did not any more provide a presumption of conformity with respect to one (or more) specific essential requirements. In practice, this allowed manufacturers and market surveillance authorities to continue the application for the uncontested part. Only the essential requirements not any longer covered with presumption of conformity had to be dealt with by means of a more detailed risk assessment. However, to initiate the procedure it was not relevant that the ATEX Standing committee was directly informed by a member state, 4.5 Report by CENELEC Consultant Mr O Riordan underlined the good progress recently made within CEN. Furthermore, one of his major present tasks was to check the relevant upcoming IEC standards of the and series against the essential requirements of directive 94/9/EC. 5. Co-operation between Notified Bodies 104

105 XI. 8 JULY 2004 Mr Jockers reported that the ExNBG meeting originally planned for mid-july had been moved to the 25 th -26 th of November No agenda had yet been drafted. Concerning EN ExNBG has detected the urgent necessity for a revision, especially due to protective systems, safety devices such as gas warning devices, and non-electrical equipment. A coherent approach between all Notified Bodies had not been agreed and this was one of the items to be discussed during the ExNBG meeting. Mr Jockers, on behalf of ExNBG, thanked David Eardley for the excellent co-operation during the last years. 6.1 Report by ATEX ADCO Being presently Chair of the ADCO group, the German delegation thanked all the participants of the June meeting held in Berlin. 16 member states have been present. The following items are of particular interest for the Standing Committee: The new member states want to present their market surveillance systems; all of them had been invited to send their presentation to the Commission Services, which would upload a translation on the website. A simplified module for safeguard clauses drafted by Sweden could be viewed on CIRCA. ICSMS had been presented. It was a very positive step that ATEX was now becoming part of this market surveillance tool. Germany had introduced its position saying that products manufactured for own use were not clearly covered by directive 94/9/EC and asked the Commission Services for a written clarification. In the meantime, this clarification had been developed confirming that, in general and unless expressly excluded, putting into service includes products manufactured for own use and, therefore, if relevant, these products must comply with all provisions of the above Directive. Accordingly, a letter was to be sent to Germany. For the upcoming ADCO meeting in Brussels the Commission Services agreed to providing translation facilities as was usual for the Standing Committee. 6.2 Draft Working Group (Revision of the Guide) ATEX/04/1/6 ATEX/04/1/6.1 The Chair explained that the paper presented by the draft Working Group did not introduce major changes. It aimed at deleting obsolete items and adding issues identified by experience over the past few years. The draft should be finalised by the end of the year to be formally approved during the first Standing Committee meeting in The Commission Services strongly recommended members not to submit last minute comments, but to provide written concerns by the end of August at the latest to the Commission Services. A table for comments would be circulated in order to allow their quick and effective handling. The collection of comments will then be submitted to the draft Working Group for discussion. 105

106 XI. 8 JULY 2004 The Standing Committee informally approved the general direction taken by the draft Working Group and thanked for the work already done. ORGALIME suggested the following issues to be mentioned in the revised Guidelines: Definition of simple non electrical apparatus Highlighting the interdiction of inappropriate CE marking To consider, whether products covered by Mandate M 131 under the Construction Product Directive should be classified as excluded from the scope of directive 94/9/EC, given that CPD requirements are severer than those of ATEX 7. ATEX 137 Directive The representative of DG Employment was not present; no discussion took place. 8. AOB 8.1 Safety and Controlling Devices Mr Geir Ottersen (Norway and CLC/TC 31) presented the interesting and important ongoing work in a CENELEC WG on safety and controlling devices. He envisaged the distribution of a paper in the Standing Committee for September, in order to allow its discussion during the next meeting and possible introduction into the draft guide. 8.2 Rules of Procedure With a view on the recently changed general rules for Standing Committees, the ATEX Standing Committee would have to formalise its own Rules of Procedure during the next meeting. The relevant text will be uploaded on CIRCA in all languages possible (it might happen that the translations in the languages of the new member states are available only by the end of this year). Member States are invited to submit the name of the Official Representative and that of his/her Deputy via the Permanent Representation by end of August to the Commission Services. As mentioned in item 6.2, hopefully during the first meeting of 2005 the revised Guidelines would then be formally approved applying these new Rules of Procedure. 8.3 Acknowledgements from and for David Eardley David Eardley thanked all members of the Standing Committee for the excellent and most pleasant co-operation during the past 5 years and wished the group all the best for the future. He would, however continue to deputise for this directive. The Standing Committee said him good-bye with a long applause. 9. Date of next meeting On 1 st of December 2004 will take place the 2 nd ADCO meeting chaired by Germany 106

107 XI. 8 JULY 2004 The next Standing Committee meeting is scheduled for the 2 nd of December Both of the dates to be confirmed 4 weeks before! 107

108 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) Standing Committee ATEX 94/9/EC (Working Group) Brussels, 2 nd December 2004 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mr Hilpert (Chair) welcomed those present. 1. Approval of draft agenda ATEX/04/2/1 rev3 The draft agenda was agreed with the only modification that a handout dealing with the consideration paper Notified Bodies and EC-Type-Examination Certificates would be discussed under item Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/04/2/2 The minutes amended according to a request of Mr O Riordan were confirmed, and Mr Mattiuzzo went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I: The paper concerning rotating mechanical seals is on the agenda under item 3.1 Action II: The paper on interfaces has been uploaded on the website Action III: The French proposals for marking of equipment have been included in chapter 11 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action IV: The draft paper on marking of components is on the agenda under item 3.2 Action V: A letter was sent to CEN and CENELEC and will be discussed under item 4 Action VI: A paper concerning explosive atmospheres inside machinery will be discussed under item 3.3 Action VII: The paper on inerting systems has been uploaded on the website

109 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 Action VIII: A table concerning the declaration of conformity has been included in chapter 10 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action IX: A clarification sheet of Ex NBG will be discussed under item 3.4 Action X: The paper concerning assemblies has been uploaded on the website Action XI: A paper on marking of assemblies will be discussed under item 3.5 Action XII: Marking of equipment having different categories has been covered in chapter 11.2 of the new draft for the Guidelines Action XIII: A paper concerning interface to potentially explosive atmospheres has been uploaded on the website 3. Scope of Directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions 3.1 Rotating mechanical seals (last meeting s Action I, outcome of the meeting in Frankfurt) ATEX/04/2/3.1 On 27 th of October a group met in the facilities of VDMA/Frankfurt and prepared this paper. Mr Tyldesley explained its content, which has been generally approved. He added that the missing of a definition of rotating mechanical seals will be send soon to the Commission services. DK suggested to modify the sentence concerning the obligations of a manufacturer of seals supplied as machinery element, because such kind of statements would be a task of the machinery committee. The group agreed that it would be sufficient to refer to the normal practice. Action I The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.2 Marking of components (last meeting s Action IV, Commission input commented by Germany) ATEX/04/2/3.2 The Commission services presented the paper. FR suggested to recall in the text that, according to the directive, ATEX components shall not the CE marked. A general discussion started, initiated by DE, on marking not explicitly requested by Art. 8(3) of the directive. According to DE marking of components could be misleading. In general, marking should occur only in cases when the lack of marking would compromise the free movement of goods. The Chair of ExNBG pointed out that components of category 1 and electrical components of category 2 have to bear, for example, the NB s number, and that therefore marking cannot generally be considered as misleading. ORGALIME stressed the advantages of marked components during the maintenance of equipment. The Commission services suggested to substitute in the paper the word shall with it is recommended, in order to underline the fact that marking of components is not a legally requested requirement. 109

110 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 Due to the positive attitude of the group to the paper, amended according to the above mentioned, also DE agreed to it provided that the inconsistency caused by the lacking legal requirement would be tackled as soon as the directive would be revised. Action II The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.3 Machinery containing an explosive atmosphere, which has no interface to an outside explosive atmosphere (last meeting s Action VI, Commission input) ATEX/04/2/3.3 The Commission services, having discussed the question with the colleagues from the machinery sector, explained the content of the paper. DE requested to add a clear statement that ATEX applies only, as long as atmospheric conditions in the sense of directive 94/9/EC are present in the machine. DK suggested to replace not appropriate with not necessary. This suited also to remove the concern of IT that some manufactures could misunderstand the statement not to apply the zone concept of directive 1999/92/EC as an invitation to avoid a correct explosion risk assessment. Though also paint spray booths exist where persons have access and therefore the zone concept of 1999/92/EC applies, the group preferred to maintain the first sentence in the paper for the sake of clarity. Action III The Commission services to upload the amended paper for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.4 Notified Bodies responsibility for products with more than one category (last meeting s Action IX, input Germany-ExNBG) ATEX/04/2/3.4 The clarification sheet of the ExNBG was discussed. It has been agreed to add a statement saying Any certificate issued by the notified body should make clear which aspects of the product have been assessed by the NB, and which have been assessed by the manufacturer alone. ExNBG should withdraw its sheet as soon as the consideration paper has been published on the ATEX website. Action IV The Commission services to upload a paper containing question, answer and example of the clarification sheet, with the above mentioned addition for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. Action V 110

111 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 ExNBG to withdraw sheet N 02/109/P as soon as the consideration paper is published on the Commission website. 3.5 Marking of assemblies (last meeting s Action XI, German input) ATEX/04/2/3.5 DE explained the paper, stressing that it is crucial to limit marking on products, and especially on assemblies, to characteristics which apply to the whole. All further details should be given in the accompanying documentation. The actual draft for the revision of the guidelines gives not yet satisfactory indication for marking of complex products. It was generally agreed that this new paper is suitable to be integrated into the guidelines, and that confusion caused by unnecessary complicated marking should be avoided. DE had detected an error (third dash of the list is not consistent with the initial statements) and that an amended version will be submitted to the Commission services. Action VI The Commission services to upload the paper, amended by DE, for a 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 3.6 Products not in conformity with EU legislation placed on the markets of the new Member States before the date of accession ATEX/04/2/3.6 The paper was explained by the Commission services. No questions arose. 3.7 Ignition hazard (outcome CEN/TC 305 WG 3) ATEX/04/2/3.7 In the current draft for the revised ATEX guidelines the definition for simple non-electrical products is still lacking. ExNBG had stated during its last meeting that the existing list is not suitable and potentially misleading. A more technical solution, related to the effectivity of the ignition source must be found. In this context the paper was presented by Mr Schober, secretary of CEN/TC 305. The group agreed to submit the paper to the draft WG for the revision of the guidelines, though discussion in CEN/TC 305 WG 2 is not yet completed. The latter refers especially to criteria defining whether an ignition source is present or not. It would also be too lengthy to wait for definitive answers from a relevant Machex research project. Action VI Submission of the paper to the draft WG for the revision of the guidelines. 3.8 Treatment of cables under the directive (NO/COM input) ATEX/04/2/3.8 The paper was confirmed without further discussion. Action VII Commission services to upload it directly as a consideration paper. 111

112 XII. 2 DECEMBER Progress on standardisation 4.1 Letter to CEN and CENELEC ATEX/04/2/4.1.1 ATEX/04/2/4.1.2 ATEX/04/2/4.1.3 This letter was sent on a request coming from the last meeting (Action V). CEN and CENELEC answered in written (preliminarily) and reported orally on the issue. Mr Schober explained for CEN that only one standard has been identified (EN ). TC 305 WG 2 will try to improve the wording, in order to prevent any misunderstanding. The problem, however, consists in CEN only for category 1 products. The revised standard can probably published as a pren towards end of Mr O Riordan stressed that in the view of CENELEC, and also himself, the problem is due to a misuse or deliberate misinterpretation of the standards text. In any case, IEC had already recognised the problem some years ago. Under the revised rules of IEC, construction standards must cover only the construction requirements. The revised rules separate the conformity assessments requirements from construction requirements. This has been implemented in the new series of standards. As soon as the EN series replace the present EN standards listed in the OJ, no misinterpretation would be possible. Furthermore the Notified Bodies have been informed accordingly. The Chair ExNBG confirmed that all Notified Bodies would receive a letter from ExNBG, which asks them to avoid this kind of undue marking. He added that also among manufacturers some confusion regarding marking exists, and the responsibility is not always with the Notified Bodies. ORGALIME should inform the manufacturers accordingly. 4.2 Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Mr Schober reported that 4 new standards coming from TC 305 have been published and referenced in the Official Journal this year, for a total of 15 ENs. 7 projects are still under development. Concerning the internationalisation of TC 305 standards, ISO has been encouraged to start work on ATEX. Though it is not CEN s aim to have its standards taken over by IEC TC 31, it will be up to the management of ISO and IEC to decide how the issue will be solved. The basic standard EN is currently under revision. However, major changes are expected only in the chapter dealing with definitions. A more detailed report on the present state of the standardisation work contains Annex II to these minutes. 4.3 Standardisation work in CLC TC 31 Next year all standards of the EN series will be superseded by the standards of the EN series for equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres formed by flammable gas and vapours. For equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres formed by combustible dust the relevant standards will be published under the EN series. 112

113 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 All these standards will contain the annex ZZ indicating the compliance with relevant ESHRs of Directive 94/9/EC. For each standard of these two series cross references with ESHRs and clauses of relevant standards will be uploaded on the website of CENELEC (click on TISS and then on TC31). The standard on safety devices is already well advanced. 4.4 Verbal Report by CENELEC Consultant Mr O Riordan explained that the WG dealing with explosion barriers in the mining industry (issue has been on the agenda of the Standing Committee in July 2004) meets in the second week of December, therefore no details could be reported yet. Reporting on the future pressurisation standard, the consultant had invited CEN TC 305 WG 2 not to develop their own standard but to refer to existing work in CENELEC. This had been done successfully for the flameproof standard. It also avoided unnecessary duplication. The pressurisation standard, coming from IEC, has been finalised last year and was being prepared for use under the ATEX Directive. It should be offered to the Commission, in the coming year, for publication in the Official Journal. He reported on 10 th of August 2004 meeting of CEN TC 305 WG3/SG1 Flame Arresters held in Berlin to discuss the UK report on Flame arrestors Performance requirements. One of the authors of the HSE report attended the meeting. Five main items of the report were identified for discussion. A short excerpt of the conclusions of the meeting was as follows: 1) the slow deflagration-restriction issue is seen as one of the common residual risks of any technical system and pose no relevant danger. It is currently under investigation by CEN and ISO members with regard to practical relevance and technical enlightenment. 2) the IEC MESG ranking proved to be reasonable and safe in practice. 3) the type of ignition source, as suggested in the report, will be taken into account but for the position of the ignition source there was no need for change. Both issues were not relevant for safety but for the reproducibility of tests. 4) the proposal regarding pipe temperature and performance was not considered adequate and had no relevance for safety. 5) the suggestion on initial test pressure, in the report, will be taken into account in future amendment to the standard. The participants of the meeting concluded that, for the time being, the standard does not need immediate change, because no serious deficits have been identified. In addition dialogue was continuing, on a number of aspects, at the current ISO TC meetings on Flame Arresters with the participation of European experts. Any future amendments would be carried out with conclusion of the dialogue at ISO and would include the findings of the Berlin meeting. The consultant has also identified overlapping work of CEN and CENELEC in the field of paint spray booths. The CENELEC draft, which covered installations, was rejected by him at inquiry stage, with the request to cover the electrical equipment system for electrostatic spray guns. The CEN draft, which was being developed under the Machinery directive, covered all aspects of spray booths. CEN and CENELEC committees should have completely different scopes. Mr O Riordan 113

114 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 will report back to the Standing Committee after further discussion with the chairmen of both subcommittees. Action VIII Consultant to report for the next SC meeting on explosion barriers in mines and overlapping standards for paint spray booths. 5 Co-operation between Notified Bodies, Verbal Report by Ex NBG Chairman Mr Jockers, new chairman of ExNBG, reported that during the meeting held the 25 th and 26 th of November Notified Bodies with in total 40 representatives were present. An important item was ExNBG s rules of procedure. They will be modified, in order to refer all issues related to the interpretation of the directive immediately to the Standing Committee, and all issues related to interpretation of standards immediately to the standardisation organisations. IEC Ex was present as observer and made a presentation. An ExNBG WG will produce input for the ongoing review of EN 13980, in order to cover in the future also quality assurance requirements for non-electrical products, safety devices as well as for autonomous protective systems. As reported previously by Mr O Riordan, ExNBG will send via CIRCA a letter to all ATEX Notified Bodies, with the aim to avoid undue marking with the NB s number. ExNBG asked the SC whether the following approach concerning means and procedures for submission of instructions for use to the user was acceptable: 1. The manufacturer shall define in his procedures how to assure that the instructions will be delivered in the correct language(s) to the end user. 2. Internet is not accepted as a medium for delivering instructions or their language versions. 3. Instructions can be submitted on CD-ROM, as long as the manufacturer assures the readability throughout the lifetime of the product. Comment of the SC: DK pointed out that it cannot be accepted to deliver safety related instructions only on CD-ROM. They must be submitted (also) in a printed version. The Chair agreed, adding that this issue had already been discussed in other sectors, with the same result as highlighted by DK. Mr Jockers will give this feedback to ExNBG, in order to avoid the application of the originally envisaged proposal. Mr Jockers explained also the negative reaction of ExNBG (see paper lately uploaded on CIRCA for this meeting and also distributed during the meeting) to the consideration paper Notified Bodies and Type Examination Certificates. ExNBG especially questions: 1. What is the legal basis of the statement the certificate issued to the manufacturer remains the property of the Notified Body? 2. Which are the legal consequences of this SC s consideration paper? 114

115 XII. 2 DECEMBER How should the information to the manufacturer be carried out, when he is not easily found? 4. Will manufacturers be invited to wait for the action of the Notified Body instead of acting on their own? 5. Why does a sector Group like ATEX try to solve a problem, which is of horizontal nature? Comment of the SC: The group agreed to submit within 6 weeks proposals for a reaction to the Commission services. The Commission services will then, and after consulting their colleagues, draft an answer, which will be put on CIRCA. The issue is also relevant for the revision of the Guidelines. 6 Ex NBG sheets to be noted ATEX/04/2/6 ExNBG intends to review its clarification sheets yearly, in order to check their validity. In this context, a Notified Bodies CIRCA site containing all valid clarification sheets will be established by the ExNB Technical Secretariat. ExNBG will also provide for a comprehensive list of sheets having relevance for the Standing Committee (i.e. not dealing with technical details, standards interpretation or practical application of conformity assessment modules). Mr Jockers estimated a number of approximately 40 such sheets, out of a total of about 140. Comment of the SC: This step is welcomed, and will allow the Commission services to put those sheets also on the ATEX CIRCA site. Applying a 4 weeks period, the Standing Committee members would express their opinion, on whether these sheets are relevant for the SC. The relevant sheets will be discussed during a SC meeting and possibly noted. Action IX Commission services to upload the sheets indicated by ExNBG on CIRCA as soon as they are available. 7 Verbal Report by Chair ATEX ADCO Mr Ostermann (DE) reported that the following was discussed the day before: ICSMS now also works for ATEX. ICSMS is widely used by the market surveillance authorities which participate, and has already proved its value. It has been mentioned that CIRCA and RAPEX are systems with different scopes and cannot be directly compared with ICSMS. However, an electronic interface between RAPEX and ICSMS has already been realised, which will facilitate the work of the authorities currently forced to carry out double work. Concerning the application of the Directive to self-manufactured products, Germany on one side and the European Commission with most of the member states on the other side have differing positions. The Commission s legal service will provide for an answer, which hopefully will resolve the issue. 115

116 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 Marking was extensively discussed as a preparation for the Standing Committee. The representatives of the market surveillance authorities underlined that clear distinction must be made between compulsory marking according to the directive and any voluntary marking. In Germany and Slovenia Notified Bodies publish information regarding EC-type examination certificates. France envisages the same. Market surveillance authorities basically welcome such a publication and will approach the Notified Bodies accordingly. The representatives of the market surveillance authorities are of the opinion that a kind of standardised declaration of conformity would not be helpful. It was more appropriate to include some explanation with regard to requirements coming from Directive 94/9/EC in the revised guidelines. It has been confirmed that an importer is obliged to keep the technical file of an ATEX product, if neither the manufacturer neither an authorised representative is established on the EU territory. This applies also in cases, when a technically identical product was already been imported under another brand name. The absence of safeguard clauses and possible reasons were discussed, too. An ADCO WG will be set up, in order to find solutions to cope with the lack of information due to the missing application of the formal procedure, and to find alternative ways for the exchange of information between member states. This concerns especially situations, when authorities found an amicable solution with the manufacturer/importer and did therefore not apply the safeguard clause. It was underlined that no confusion between obligatory and voluntary certification shall be created on products and certificates. Market surveillance authorities will pay attention that voluntary certificates are clearly distinguishable from certificates according to Directive 94/9/EC. Also the rising demand from users for ATEX certificates for non-atex products was stressed. The ADCO group agreed that no such certificates are acceptable and that users must be better informed on the basic principles, in order to create a kind of ATEX culture, which seems still to be missing. A new chair (UK) was elected. Chairman for the next two meetings will be Mr Iain Nicol from DTI. The next ADCO meeting will probably held in Liverpool in mid-june Draft Working Group (Revision of Guide) plus an additional UK paper to be integrated ATEX/04/2/8.1 ATEX/04/2/8.2 ATEX/04/2/8.3 The members of the draft Working Group for the revision of the ATEX Guidelines met in the VDMA facilities in Frankfurt/Main. They managed, despite the amount of comments received, to make a big step forward and to discuss all of them. The results of the discussion are reflected in the paper ATEX/04/2/8.3 (collation of comments with decisions) and the new draft ATEX/04/2/8.1. The aim is to include as many of the consideration papers as possible and to leave only the too specific ones. Three remaining questions and answers will be published as consideration papers 116

117 XII. 2 DECEMBER 2004 and cancelled in the guidelines text. Probably one further meeting of the draft WG is necessary to complete the drafting. A meeting will be convened towards March in Brussels. UK presented a paper (ATEX/04/2/8.2) with examples of how the interface paper should apply. DK pointed out that the third example is not appropriate, especially because milk spray driers are normally not ATEX equipment. The group agreed to include the first two examples into the Guide together with the interface paper. It is actually the aim and general policy of the Commission Services to keep Guidelines as live as possible. Furthermore it must be considered that there are 20 official languages. Therefore, it is envisaged to publish the revised Guidelines only on the internet and only in English language. Most probably there will be a html file, regularly updated and, as far as suitable, publishing of consideration papers will be avoided. Consideration papers will still be uploaded for too specific issues. The Guidelines should be formally approved next summer. This formally approved text will be placed on the Commission s website as a pdf-file, which can easily be printed out. The live document will be the html-file. When suitable, the amendments of the html-file can be formally approved, leading to a third edition (and so on). FR pointed out that there could be some embarrassment in France for the missing translation. The Commission services underlined, however, that, given the impossibility to have the extensive text translated into 20 languages in a reasonable time and in the light of financial restraints, it would not be adequate to privilege one or more languages with a translation. As soon as the consideration papers are included in the draft, the Commission services will upload the document on CIRCA together with the table for comments, in order to get some final comments (hopefully little, because the following draft will be the final one). Deadline will be the 7th of February Action X Commission services to upload the completed draft on CIRCA together with the table for comments. 9 ATEX 137 Directive, Verbal Report by DG EMPL No representative of DG employment was present. DG ENTR reported that presently no desk officer is assigned to the ATEX 137 Directive, and that the contact person for the moment is Mr Biosca, head of the unit in charge. DG ENTR will try to get feedback for further collaboration, e.g. concerning the new guidelines, or interpretation questions touching the borderline between the two directives. 10 AOB Mrs Wasserberg (UK) and Mr Federici (IT) participated for the last time at the ATEX Standing Committee group. The Commission services thanked them for their pleasant and fruitful collaboration and wished them the best for their future. 11 Confirmation of next meeting dates 117

118 XII. 2 DECEMBER th of June 2005 and 1 st of December 2005 were agreed. Both of the dates to be confirmed 4 weeks before! 118

119 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Conformity and standardisation, new approach, industries under new approach Mechanical and electrical equipment (including telecom terminal equipment) ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Brussels, 30 th of June 2005 Meeting Report Opening and welcome Mrs Spiliopoulou (Chair) welcomed those present. 1. Approval of the draft agenda ATEX/05/1/1 rev1 The draft agenda was agreed with the only addition of a Danish question regarding the consideration paper on filter units, to be discussed under AOB. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/05/2/2 The minutes were amended according to a request of Mr O Riordan. Mr Mattiuzzo went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I: The consideration paper on rotating mechanical seals had been circulated and published on the website. Action II: The consideration paper on marking of components has been circulated and published on the website. Action III: The consideration paper on machinery containing an explosive atmosphere, which has no interface to an outside explosive atmosphere had been circulated and published on the website. Action IV: The amended former ExNB clarification sheet on Notified Bodies responsibility for products with more than one category had been circulated and then published on the website. Action V: Mr Mattiuzzo reminded the Chair of ExNBG that the sheet on Notified Bodies responsibility for products with more than one category (N 02/109/P) should be withdrawn as the consideration paper was now published on the Commissions website.

120 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 Action VI (1st): The paper on marking of assemblies had been amended and circulated twice on CIRCA. Further editorial changes had already been approved by the Member States representatives present at the ADCO meeting in Liverpool. Under item 3 on the agenda a decision would be taken as to whether to include into the revised Guidelines (ATEX/05/1/3.2). Action VI (2nd): The document on ignition hazards had been submitted to the draft WG for the revision of the guidelines and taken into account. Action VII: A consideration paper on treatment of cables under the directive had been uploaded on the website. Action VIII: A verbal report by the CENELEC Consultant on explosion barriers in mines and overlapping standards for paint spray booths was not possible, as he was not present. Implicit Action: Notified Bodies and Type Examination Certificates : On the agenda under item 3. Action IX: Most sheets indicated by ExNBG have been uploaded on CIRCA. On the agenda under item 7. Action X: The latest draft produced by the WG for the revision of guidelines had been uploaded on CIRCA together with the table for comments. 3. Information on the revision of the Guidelines Comments and decisions of the Draft WG ATEX/05/1/3.1 The document had been placed on CIRCA some months ago and included all comments received as well as decisions of the draft WG. The draft has also been amended to reflect consideration papers suitable for inclusion. Notified Bodies and Type Examination Certificates Verbal report COM The issue had been re-discussed with our colleagues from the unit dealing with horizontal and legal questions. They confirmed the view in the consideration paper and included into the guidelines. For clarification it should be noted that, although certificates are issued to the manufacturer at a given moment, Notified Bodies cannot deny their responsibility after time for those certificates in view of the following: - Notified Bodies are obliged to keep themselves updated as far as the development of the state of the art is concerned; - Notified Bodies allow manufacturers to make use of the certificates not only for the date when the certificate was issued; - According to Annex III point 7 the Notified Body has the possibility to withdraw a certificate; - According to Annex III point 6 the manufacturer shall inform the Notified Body of all modifications where such changes may affect conformity with the essential requirements and where 120

121 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 therefore a further approval is needed. This obligation is usually also part of the ongoing licence agreement between Notified Body and manufacturer; - According to national civil law certification bodies usually have an obligation of due diligence vis-à-vis the validity of issued certificates. It is therefore not correct to simply state that an EC type examination certificate states compliance of a test sample with essential requirements only at a certain point of time and does not imply future compliance. On the contrary, Member States and Commission Services in the ATEX Standing Committee concluded that, when the originally certified type does no longer meet the provisions of the directive, Notified Bodies must inform the manufacturer that the certificate may not continue to be used. In this context it should also be noted that the directive on in-vitro-diagnostics and the directive on medical devices, as well as the text for the revision of the machinery directive contain specific requirements in that respect. Although the issue is at present not explicitly reflected in the ATEX directive or horizontally, the ongoing revision of the New Approach envisages to include such requirements. For these reasons the group confirmed that the relevant part of the Guidelines which contains the original consideration paper shall remain as is. Information on manufacturing for own use Verbal report COM Germany s answer to a letter from the Commission services had been submitted to the unit dealing with horizontal and legal questions. A response was provided a few days before the meeting and, hence, a formal letter could not be provided before the day s discussion. However, the note confirms that the interpretation given in the guidelines since the first edition is correct, and is consequently in contradiction with the view of the German authorities. The main reasons are the following: - The fact that the machinery directive and the lifts directive explicitly cover products manufactured for own use is not a valid argument to support the view that the ATEX directive, which does not mention this issue, excludes these products. The contrary conclusion could be drawn from the fact that the recreational craft directive explicitly excludes products manufactured from own use. - The Blue Guide explicitly refers to the case of products manufactured for own use in the context of the explanation on the interpretation of the term putting into service (see page 19, 2nd column, line 2). This indicates that it is not only an accidental consequence of the wide notion of putting into service. Obviously it has been the legislator s intention to include products manufactured for own use into New Approach legislation. - The system put in place by the ATEX directive is based on two pillars: (a) (b) the determination of essential requirements; the provision for adequate procedures to assess the conformity with these requirements, which are devised in the light of the level of risk inherent in equipment. Applying a different national regime to these products would result in a different level of protection of persons which cannot be justified. 121

122 XIII. 30 JUNE It cannot be argued that Article 2(1) is addressed to the Member States and cannot as such create obligations for manufacturers and manufacturers manufacturing products for their own use. Member States must adopt in their national legal systems all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective in accordance with the objectives pursued. - The exclusion of these products from the scope of the directive and leaving this particular case to the national legislator may give rise to distortions of competition at user level. Action I A written reply to Germany will be produced by the Commission services as soon as possible. Given that the note confirmed the position taken by the Commission and all other Member States, the text of the Guidelines will remain unmodified. Mr Moritz (DE) accepted this for the present, but asked to include his remarks into the minutes of the meeting of the formal Standing Committee. This was agreed by the Chair who thanked Germany for the co-operative approach. Marking of Assemblies ATEX/05/1/3.2 The paper which had originally been placed on CIRCA for a 4 weeks circulation had been slightly modified in order to avoid misunderstanding. The technical content had not been changed. The modified paper had already been approved by the Member States representatives present during the ADCO meeting held on the 16 th and 17 th of June in Liverpool. There was general agreement to include the text as chapter 11.6 into the new Guidelines. Water trough barriers Verbal report COM There had been no agreement on whether water trough barriers are protective systems in the sense of the directive or not. Therefore it was considered better to remove the word from the exclusions mentioned in chapter 3.8 on protective systems. The new consultant, Mr Dill, has forwarded his preliminary position to the Commission services. Unfortunately he could not attend the meeting to explain it to the group. His opinion in broad terms: - the troughs (or sacks used in Central Europe) could be considered as components; - the complete barriers composed of troughs assembled to the framework are not an installation but a system in the sense of the directive where all requirements for design, testing and marking should be applied; - the system might be assembled by the user following the instructions of the manufacturer and according to defined parameters. The group agreed with the Commission services that it would be the best to draft a consideration paper on this topic after the meeting. Action II Commission Services to draft a consideration paper with the consultant on water trough barriers as a basis for further discussion. 122

123 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 Final draft ATEX-SC/05/1/2 The final draft had been uploaded on CIRCA for the formal part of the meeting. It reflects comments received where the draft WG considered this suitable. Many comments pointed out incoherent or ambiguous wording which have been clarified. The quality of the text is much better than that of former drafts. An important number of consideration papers had also been incorporated and some unnecessary or outdated introductory parts have been removed. Denmark and UK agreed to accept the text as it stands, but asked as Germany before to include their remarks into the minutes for the meeting of the formal Standing Committee. This was agreed by the Chair who thanked them, too, for the constructive co-operation. With that the meeting was interrupted for the formal approval of the second edition of the Guidelines to the application of directive 94/9/EC (see separate minutes). Before closing this item of the agenda the Chair and Mr Mattiuzzo warmly thanked all those who participated in that work, and especially the members of the draft Working Group who had done a great job in assisting the Commission Services and putting their precious knowledge to the disposal of the ATEX community. 4. Directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions At this point Mr Hilpert took over the Chair from Mrs Spiliopoulou. 4.1 ex Question & Answer on Bucket elevators (France) ATEX/05/1/4.1 France pointed out that bucket elevators are fitted with protective systems and quite frequently caused internal explosions. A fact which should be addressed by this group. UK added that according to the concepts laid down in the revised guidelines, and assuming that these machines contained explosive atmospheres caused by air/dust mixtures continuously, for long periods or frequently, the manufacturer would be obliged to use category 1 equipment inside. However, manufacturers would probably argue that such atmospheres are not present, in order to avoid the involvement of Notified Bodies for the equipment used inside the machine. France agreed to amend the original paper and to submit it to the Commission services as a basis for further discussion. Action III France to amend the paper on bucket elevators and to submit it to the Commission services for further discussion. 4.2 Marking of Protective systems (UK) ATEX/05/1/4.2 The UK questioned what information should be included: - in the declaration of conformity; 123

124 XIII. 30 JUNE in the certificate from the Notified Bodies; and, - in the instructions for use of protective systems. Contributions from ExNBG, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany agreed that all necessary information must be included in the instructions for use. It was the obligation of the manufacturer, and the Notified Body would only assess the suitability of the instructions against the EHSRs. The certificates would not be the right place to provide information on the correct use of protective systems, as users frequently did not receive a copy of the certificate. The content of the declaration of conformity was regulated in the directive, and no further requirements could be defined by the Standing Committee. CEN and CENELEC were not in a position to provide information regarding standards for protective systems. Mr Bothe (DE), however, confirmed the above position and informed those present that e.g. the standard on flame arrestors already requires the description of the correct application in the instructions for use. UK accepted the results of the discussion. 4.3 Powder conveyors (UK) ATEX/05/1/4.3 It was agreed that the revised guidelines include all necessary information to allow powder conveyor manufacturers to decide whether directive 94/9/EC applies. The UK agreed to this approach. 4.4 Revision of the consideration paper on Gas Turbines ATEX/05/1/4.4 a-c Mr. Mattiuzzo explained that in the light of the approaches commonly agreed in the revised guidelines (especially chapter 4.1.2) and in order to ensure coherence the conclusions laid down in the paper on Gas Turbines need to be reconsidered. This was basically due to the interpretations given for inside outside, interfaces to explosive atmospheres and machinery having an internal explosive atmosphere but no interface to a potentially explosive atmosphere. The Commission services had therefore prepared a first draft of an amended paper. The trade association for the European Gas and Steam Turbine Industry (EUnited Turbines) had also submitted a preliminary position. Representatives of EUnited Turbines had been invited to attend the meeting for this point of the agenda and introduced themselves and their paper. It aims e.g. at better defining what is equipment, assembly, etc. in a Gas Turbine. Moreover it highlights already approved approaches in the several Member States and outlined the certification procedures presently applied. Germany stressed that the discussion on Gas Turbines would have to address the issue of products which form their own potentially explosive atmosphere but eliminate it by technical measures. The UK said that there had not been sufficient time to discuss the papers with experts, but some statements have been uploaded on CIRCA a few days before the meeting. It appeared, however, that not all manufacturers agree with the positions in the EUnited Turbines paper. In particular, the UK considered that any confusing or unnecessary new definitions be avoided and as much as possible 124

125 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 of the original paper conserved, in order to avoid uncertainty among the stakeholders. It was said that further discussion was required and an Ad-Hoc-Group might be a good solution. The Group agreed and UK, Norway, France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark agreed to take part in the discussion. EUnited Turbines was also invited to take part. The following timetable is envisaged: The Commission services will distribute available information to the Ad-Hoc-Group the week after the meeting in order to receive written feedback by the end of July. These comments will be evaluated and a summary circulated before the end of August. Dependent on the degree of consensus reached, a meeting might be foreseen in the autumn to agree on a draft paper for the next ATEX Working Group meeting in December. Action IV Commission services to start the discussion on the Gas Turbines paper and to summarize the responses. 4.5 Proposal for simple electrical products (DK) ATEX/05/1/4.5 Denmark explained that in the revised Guidelines simple electrical products were not adequately covered. A definition of these products was missing, whereas it was available for simple nonelectrical products. Missing was also suggested marking. In order to have a more mature text as a basis for further discussion, DK will provide for a revised proposal to be circulated by the Commission services on CIRCA for comments. The result of the discussion might lead to a consideration paper and eventually to an amendment of the approved Guidelines. Action V DK to submit a revised draft on simple electrical products for further discussion. 5. Progress on standardisation Repair and maintenance of ATEX equipment: lack of requirements for adequate instructions ATEX/05/1/5.1 The tabled paper (most of which was discussed under item 9) outlined several suggestions from Switzerland to address the need for more clarification concerning the repair and maintenance of ATEX products. One of the recommendations made was to draw up standards with regard to repair and servicing. The Netherlands and CENELEC remarked that on IEC (and soon also on CLC) level such standards already exist, e.g. IEC for maintenance and IEC for repair. However, from a Commission point of view it was considered difficult to adopt in this not completely harmonised domain under Art. 137 ENs, because European Standards are de-facto completely harmonising documents. Germany pointed out that ENs, even if in contradiction with national legislation, must be transposed into identical national standards and all diverging standards must be withdrawn. Legal uncertainty would result. However, some evidence had been received and also confirmed by a study carried out on behalf of the Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and Standardisation (KAN) in Germany, that 125

126 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 harmonised product standards do not always sufficiently address requirements for the instructions for use, incl. repair and maintenance. The Group agreed that Member States and other stakeholders should report on possible incomplete requirements in existing ATEX relevant product standards to the Commission services, which will be discussed with the consultant. If necessary, CEN and CENELEC would be requested to amend these specification should deficiencies be identified. Action VI All stakeholders to inform the Commission services about missing or incomplete requirements for instructions for repair and maintenance in product standards. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 ATEX/05/1/5.2 Verbal report CEN In addition to the paper on the agenda, Mr Radandt, Chairman of CEN/TC 305, reported on the dialogue with CEN/TC 199 aimed at avoiding conflicts and overlap between standards developed by one or other committee. A discussion on ventilators is presently taking place in order to decide whether they are to be considered as electrical or non-electrical equipment. In any case, explained Mr Radandt, the dominating risks should be the decisive criterion. With respect to the revision of EN , the latest comments could only be taken into account during the planned revision of the revision. The present work had a restricted scope (not all aspects were under revision) and it would be unfair towards those who limited their statements to consider also more far reaching comments. There was as yet no timetable defined for the following revision step, but it will certainly not take place before the finalisation of the current revision. Standardisation work in CLC TC 31 Verbal Report CENELEC Mr Czyz, Chairman of CLC/TC 31, informed those present that all relevant IEC standards had now been transposed into ENs. They will be submitted to the Commission services for the publication in the Official Journal before the end of the year. As far as Annex ZZ is concerned, this detailed cross-reference between standards clauses and directive requirements will be published as agreed on the website of CLC/TC 31. Publication of new standards in the OJ Verbal report COM Mr Mattiuzzo explained that the publication of new harmonised CEN standards in the OJ has been delayed due to some problems. In particular, errors in translated references, and Annex ZAs were not in line with the agreements between the Commission and the ESOs. This was currently under discussion and Mr Hakimi form CEN confirmed that it should soon be resolved as far as the titles are concerned. It was, however, not acceptable from a Commission point of view that new harmonised standards should still have incorrect Annex ZAs, stating e.g. that the compliance with essential requirements is only likely. A corrigendum will therefore be necessary. If the procedure takes too long, correctly submitted CENELEC standards references might be published earlier. 126

127 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 The Netherlands pointed out that in the current lists the dates for the cessation of conformity are linked to the date of withdrawal of CENELEC standards, and that delays in publication will shorten the transitional period for the industry. Mr Mattiuzzo replied that this period is normally 3 years long and that therefore no real problem should occur, especially when one considers that for CEN standards no such transitional provisions presently exist. 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Information on marking with NB s number ATEX/05/1/6 ExNBG had circulated a letter to all ATEX Notified Bodies to avoid undue marking with the NB s number. This was generally appreciated. However, Spain presented the opinion that according to Article 10.1 of directive 94/9/EC the number of the Notified Body was directly linked to the CE marking. This would lead to the conclusion that components cannot be marked with the Notified Body s number, because they are not CE marked, and it would be in conflict with the final note of the above letter. France and Germany argued that, at least according to their language versions, CE mark and Notified Body s number are separate issues. ExNBG, Germany and Italy stressed that it would be a serious lack of information for the market surveillance authorities, if the Notified Body s number was not put on the components when these were placed on the market under the relevant procedures. ExNBG added that the directive left it unclear how the Notified Body s number shall be shaped (dimensions, really part of the CE mark?, etc.). The Group followed a suggestion from Austria and asked the Commission services to draft a consideration paper for clarification. Mr Jockers agreed to send out the letter once more without the final note and with some explanation concerning this discussion. Action VII The Commission services to draft a paper on Notified Body s number on components. Action VIII ExNBG to send out the letter on undue marking with Notified Body s number on components once more without the final note. Verbal Report by Ex NBG Chairman Mr Jockers, new Chairman of ExNBG, reported that the next meeting of the ExNB Group would take place on 22/23 September Some weeks ago many clarification sheets had been sent to the originating Notified Bodies asking whether they were still relevant. If this was not confirmed, the sheets would be withdrawn. In other cases they might be confirmed or revised. Mr Jockers noted the statements made by the Commission services with respect to the clause in the revised guidelines on EC-type-examination certificates and the state of the art, but asked nevertheless for a written reply to the concerns of ExNBG. Action IX 127

128 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 Commission services to prepare a written reply to ExNBG concerning EC-typeexamination certificates and the state of the art. He pointed out that the discussion in other directives were different in the past, but added that in his personal opinion which cannot be taken for that of ExNB the position taken in the revised Guidelines is correct and clarifies the situation. Following a question of the Netherlands on the impact of the present change from the EN series to EN (IEC) series for EC-type-examination certificates it had been clarified that this transition was exactly the same as any step from one edition of a standard to another where the number remains unchanged. It is up to manufacturers and Notified Bodies to verify if the essential health and safety requirements were still fulfilled. Access to Notified Bodies certificates (UK) ATEX/05/1/6.2 Mrs Wasserberg (UK) explained in short the content of the paper. UK agreed to submit the paper with some corrections to the Commission services, because the wording was not always correct (e.g. withdraw certificates when standards are superseded ). After that the paper would be added to the minutes (see Annex II). Dr Jockers announced that ExNBG would comment on the paper. He added that different information requirements were laid down in different directives, and it might be interesting to verify how this aspect was to be dealt with by consideration of the work ongoing to revise the New Approach. 7. Ex NBG sheets to be noted ATEX/04/2/7 Mr Mattiuzzo introduced the paper and gave an initial evaluation of some sheets. However, the group did not feel prepared to evaluate the large number of ExNBG clarification sheets put together for the first time. It was therefore agreed to apply a two-step approach in order to be better prepared for the December meeting: The Commission services will immediately withdraw sheets already noted but covered or in conflict with the revised guidelines from the ATEX 94/9/EC website. They will also provide a more detailed paper as soon as possible for stating why other sheets should not be noted. This paper will be circulated on CIRCA for feedback. Deadline for feedback would be 6 weeks before the next ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group meeting on 1 st of December 2005, i.e. towards mid of October. Sheets not commented would be proposed in bulk for noting during the December meeting. Action X Commission services to withdraw already noted ExNBG clarification sheets from the Commission website, if they were overlapping or in contrast with the revised guidelines. Action XI Commission services to prepare a detailed paper stating why other valid ExNBG clarification sheets should not be noted. 128

129 XIII. 30 JUNE Report by Chair ATEX ADCO UK summarised the discussion for the minutes of the Working Group as follows: 1. Rules of Procedure: the suggested changes were taken on board and the text will be re-issued before the next meeting 2. Marking of assemblies paper: changes were agreed; the paper to be incorporated into the ATEX Guidelines 3. Safeguard procedure: agreed with deletion of informal procedure - adopted and already put on the website 4. Matrix of Member States market surveillance procedures and penalties: UK to coordinate production 5. Pro forma procedure for the exchange of information: agreed - UK to circulate paper with instruction for use and to consider Member States comments 6. Simple electrical products: COM to produce a consideration paper 7. Consideration of certification issues when differences between NB emerge: agreed to form a Working Group - Members UK, Germany and Netherlands - Action, Netherlands to produce paper on how this will work 8. Double-marking on Fork Lift Trucks (FLTs): COM to consider issue 9. Natural gas filling stations: in absence of harmonised standards, manufacturers should go to the NB for assessment under health and safety requirements - commission to consult CEN consultant Wolf Dill 10. Simple products and dealing with exclusions under ATEX: UK to take forward the issue - action several MSs before next meeting 11. Risks associated with bulk handling equipment such as bucket elevators: Member states to provide information 12. Two way radios: discussed the role of NBs in setting power levels and margins of safety under the EHSRs 13. Delegation to take over Chair from UK post Winter 2005 ADCO: a request was made for volunteers 9. ATEX 137 Directive Repair and maintenance of ATEX equipment ATEX/05/1/5.1 (CH) ATEX/05/1/9 (UK) 129

130 XIII. 30 JUNE 2005 The standardisation aspect addressed by document ATEX/05/1/5.1 had already been discussed under item 5. It was clear that that it was highly unlikely that directive 1999/92/EC would be formally amended with an Annex IV on repair and servicing. Moreover, guidelines to directive 1999/92/EC were already available on the Commission website: A further suggestion was made to set up a Standing Committee (analogous to that of the 94/9/EC directive). Here DK noted that there was already a unsuccessful initiative to do that under the framework of the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (SLIC). It was mentioned that perhaps a WG under the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (ACSH) might be a more promising alternative, as this Committee had the task of assisting the Commission in the preparation, implementation and evaluation of activities in the fields of safety and health at work. Unit H5 of DG ENTR will meet the colleagues of DG EMPL to discuss ATEX issues and to find the most appropriate solution. The possibilities for a kind of Standing Committee may be one of the topics. With respect to ATEX/05/1/9 DK and ES pointed out that it is rather difficult to understand, including some unknown abbreviations. It was agreed that UK would redraft the paper together with COM, in order to distinguish between issues relevant for directive 94/9/EC and those for directive 1999/92/EC. The latter could be part of the discussion with DG EMPL. Action XII UK to redraft, together with COM, the UK paper on repair of ATEX plant clearly distinguishing between issues relevant for directive 94/9/EC and directive 1999/92/EC. 10. AOB DK proposed to amend editorially the consideration paper on filter units because the sequence of paragraphs was not logic. It was agreed to upload the proposal for a 4 weeks circulation. Action XIII COM to upload the amended paper on filter units for 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. 11. Confirmation of next meeting date 1 st of December Date to be confirmed 4 weeks before! 130

131 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Aerospace, security, defence and equipment Mechanical and electrical equipment) ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Brussels, 1 st of December 2005 Meeting Report Opening and welcome The Chair welcomed the new consultant, Mr Wolf Dill, who joined for the first time in his new role the ATEX Standing Committee WG. Mr Dill introduced himself. 1. Approval of the draft agenda ATEX/05/2/1 rev3 The draft agenda was agreed with an additional issue relating to safety devices, which was raised by PL and to be discussed after ATEX/05/2/ Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting ATEX/05/2/2 The minutes were approved without amendment. The Chair went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I: A written reply to DE to be produced by the Commission services concerning manufacturing for own use as soon as possible. This had been done some days before the meeting. (The letter is annexed to this report: Annex IIa the original, Annex IIb the English translation). DE noted the letter but was not in a position to react immediately. An answer is expected by the Commission Services as to an amendment of the German transposition of directive 94/9/EC. Action II: Commission Services to draft a consideration paper with the consultant on water trough barriers as a basis for further discussion. On the agenda. Action III: FR to amend the paper on bucket elevators and to submit it to the Commission services for further discussion. On the agenda.

132 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 Action IV: Commission services to start the discussion on the Gas Turbines paper and to summarize the responses. On the agenda. Action V: DK to submit a revised draft on simple electrical products for further discussion. On the agenda. Action VI: All stakeholders to inform the Commission services about missing or incomplete requirements for instructions for repair and maintenance in product standards. On the agenda. Action VII: The Commission services to draft a paper on Notified Body s number on components. On the agenda. Action VIII: ExNBG to send out the letter on undue marking with Notified Body s number on components once more without the final note. Done by Mr Jockers. Action IX: Commission services to prepare a written reply to ExNBG concerning EC-typeexamination certificates and the state of the art. Done, to be distributed to ExNBG during its meeting on the 14./15. December (see Annex III). Action X: Commission services to withdraw already noted ExNBG clarification sheets from the Commission website, if they were overlapping or in contrast with the revised guidelines. Done. Action XI: Commission services to prepare a detailed paper stating why other valid ExNBG clarification sheets should not be noted. On the agenda of this meeting. Action XII: UK to redraft, together with COM, the UK paper on repair of ATEX plant clearly distinguishing between issues relevant for directive 94/9/EC and directive 1999/92/EC. UK and COM preferred to discuss rather the outcome of a meeting with DG EMPL under item 8. Action XIII: COM to upload the amended paper on filter units for 4 weeks circulation on CIRCA. Done and on the agenda. 3. ExNBG sheets to be noted ATEX/05/2/3a ATEX/05/2/3b + ATEX/05/1/7, 7b and 7c The group discussed the valid ExNBG clarification sheets (ATEX/05/1/7, 7b and 7c) as suggested in ATEX/05/2/3a and came to the conclusions detailed in Annex IV to these minutes. In summary: 16 sheets already noted in the past have been confirmed, 2 of which need still to be submitted to the Commission services in the version signed by the chairman of ExNBG; 9 sheets noted in the past are not suitable anymore and should be withdrawn by ExNBG; 11 sheets of those not yet noted are not suitable for noting and should be withdrawn by ExNBG; a further 55 sheets can now be noted, 32 of which need to be submitted beforehand to the Commission services signed by the chairman of ExNBG; 132

133 XIV. 1 DECEMBER sheets will need further action by ExNBG. Action I COM to modify the ATEX website accordingly. Action II The chairman of ExNBG to submit the signed version of the above mentioned 34 sheets to the Commission services. Action III ExNBG to carry out the relevant actions in Annex IV to these minutes. Regarding ExNB01-103CS CZ agreed to give feedback to ExNBG on those elements already covered by standards (projects). COM will help to identify parts covered by the guidelines. Action IV COM to prepare draft consideration papers or proposals to amend the guidelines based on clarification sheets to be withdrawn. For ExNB00-035CS CZ agreed to deliver some input. When discussing the NL letter (ATEX/05/2/3b) the Chair explained that it would not be sensible to note some ExNBG sheets on the Commission website and others on the CLC site. However, CLC would be free to publish sheets concerning electrical standardisation on its website, too. The group agreed that, though a few sheets dealing with very old standards could be misleading, they should remain noted. In the meantime NL will investigate which of them could give rise to serious problems and provide for feedback to ExNBG. Action V NL to investigate which of sheets dealing with very old standards could give rise to serious problems and provide for feedback to ExNBG. 4. Directive 94/9/EC, interpretation questions Marking of components with the Notified Body s number (HU) ATEX/05/2/4.1 ATEX/05/2/4.1b HU introduced paper ATEX/05/2/4.1, providing their opinion that certain Articles of directive 94/9/EC are not applicable to components, because the latter are not explicitly mentioned. The Chair explained that the Commission services were aware that the directive is not completely coherent as to components, but nevertheless did not agree with the Hungarian position. From a market surveillance point of view, such an approach would lead to a de-facto non-application of the directive to components. This was not the intention of the legislator. For example, the obligation 133

134 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 laid down in article 11 requiring member states authorities to take action against products, to which the CE marking was incorrectly affixed, must be understood as an obligation against non-compliant products in scope, components included, even if those are not CE marked. The Consultant, Mr Dill, as one of the contributors to the original draft of the directive confirmed this interpretation as in line with the intention of the authors. At the time it was the wish of industry to have components covered by the directive and certified. For the sake of clarity the Commission services had prepared an amendment (ATEX/05/2/4.1b) to the original draft consideration paper. Mr Sacchetti from the Commission explained these modifications as follows: The directive must be read in its entirety. It was misleading to consider the wording of single paragraphs isolated from the context. The Notified Bodies number is not part of the CE marking. The directive simply requires that the former follows the CE marking whenever both shall be affixed. In essence, the provisions of the directive which apply to equipment and protective systems apply to components unless otherwise specified. In conclusion, the interpretation given above and in the draft consideration paper would not introduce a new requirement, but only interpret the directive as intended by the legislator. The rest of the group did not share the Hungarian position and the paper was agreed as amended in ATEX/05/2/4.1b. ES asked for a formal approval of this position by the Standing Committee set up under Art. 6 of the directive. The Chair agreed. Action VI COM to upload the paper and to organise a formal approval by the Standing Committee set up under Art. 6 of the directive. Simple electrical apparatus (DK) Marking of equipment out of scope (DK) ATEX/05/2/4.2a rev1 ATEX/05/2/4.2b DK introduced the paper ATEX/05/2/4.2a rev1 and stressed the lack of guidance for the identification of simple electrical products, whereas the second edition of the guidelines was helpful as to simple mechanical products. UK, PL, CLC and DE had some doubts on the wording of the Danish proposal, e.g. concerning switches. The discussion focussed on the existence of harmonised standards in this field. The group agreed that it would not be helpful to deal in detail with the issue both in the guidelines and in standardisation, because contradictions would be unavoidable. Therefore, the suggestion of the Chair to add a link to existing harmonised standards to the guidelines as to the identification of simple electrical products was approved. DK accepted the results of the discussion. Action VII 134

135 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 COM to amend the guidelines for simple electrical products as agreed. With respect to ATEX/05/2/4.2b the group agreed that any kind of marking on products out of scope need to be different from marking required on products in scope. Possible national solutions might also be potentially in conflict with Article 28 of the treaty. A solution could therefore only be sought on the level of standardisation. Consequently, the Danish proposal in ATEX/05/2/4.2b was not endorsed and DK agreed to continue their efforts in standardisation. Revision of the consideration paper on Filter Units ATEX/05/2/4.3 The amended paper was discussed briefly and the modifications explained. In addition, the questions and remarks raised in footnotes by FI were answered as follows: 1) The considerations of section 5 apply also to explosion vents supplied with equipment of category 2 or 3. 2) Information regarding reduced pressure, equipment pressure resistance, flame length, pressure effects from explosion vent or recoil forces is already required from the manufacturers via standardisation. 3) The considerations in section 6 do not allow any conclusions as to the place where such filter units may be used. The wording refers only to the inside of these products. The group agreed also to delete the last sentence in section 1 of ATEX/05/2/4.3 and to upload the paper as amended. Action VIII COM to upload the amended paper on filter units. Comment to Guidelines (NL) ATEX/05/2/4.4 NL introduced their letter concerning the responsibilities of Notified Bodies as laid down in chapter 10.3 of the revised guidelines. The Chair commented that for this issue it was not decisive whether new standards are harmonised under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, but rather whether the state of the art with a view to complying with the essential health and safety requirements has developed. The chairman of ExNBG acknowledged that this could concern e.g. the quality of the instructions for use, where the understanding on how to comply with ESHRs has significantly developed in the past. The aim of the wording but it has equally to be generally acknowledged by the technical community of the stakeholders is to avoid any misuse when communicating that a certificate is not any longer valid. Modification of this wording as suggested by NL in saying It is up to the technical community of the stakeholders to verify if the essential health and safety requirements were still fulfilled would 135

136 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 be wrong, because it was the duty of the Notified Bodies to continuously monitor the state of the art. As to developments in standardisation, CLC mentioned that it would be helpful, if information is given in new standards on whether the modifications represented a change of the state of the art with a view to complying with the essential health and safety requirements. This suggestion was welcomed by those present. HU proposed that users should also be informed. The group acknowledged that this would be desirable, but not a task of the ATEX 94/9/EC group. The Chair concluded that the current wording of the guidelines will stand as is, unless somebody would provide a convincing amendment which maintains the original scope. He also announced that ExNBG will receive a letter for the meeting scheduled on the 14 th and 15 th of December where the position laid down in the guidelines will be confirmed (see Annex III to these minutes). Wording simple valves on page 33 of the Guidelines Oral report COM The Chair reported a meeting with two representatives of the European valves association (CEIR). They still considered possible reviewing the position on valves as simple products as described in the guidelines. This was not the case and the Commission services gave them the following explanation: if a valve has no own ignition source, it is out of scope (same as for non atmospheric conditions, etc.); even if there are some risks related to electrical continuity, no exception for valves as to the concept of simple products is possible, because this concept was generally agreed by Commission and Member States and any change would result in an application of directive 94/9/EC to quiet every single product intended to be used in a potentially explosive atmosphere, e.g. to pipes, where electrostatic charges are relevant; it has been noted that manufacturers have a problem dealing with customers asking for ATEX valves ; here the understanding must be communicated that even if directive 94/9/EC does not apply, the users directive applies; the user must specify the conditions of use and the manufacturer must offer a suitable product; adequate documentation (not an EC declaration of conformity, of course) accompanying the product may clarify the conditions for use and the technical characteristics. CEIR accepted these explanations (see Annex V) and asked the ATEX Standing Committee WG to confirm this conclusion. The group accepted them with the following changes: 1. For valves, a simple product in respect to ATEX 94/9/EC Directive is an industrial valve which has undergone an ATEX Risk Hazard Assessment by the Manufacturer and has been proven to have no own ignition risk in normal operation as well as expected and rare malfunctioning. Such a valve is outside of the scope of the ATEX Directive. 2. In case the ATEX risk hazard assessment shows that an industrial valve does have its own ignition sources, such a valve is not a simple product and falls within the scope of the ATEX Directive. 3. Electrostatic charges caused by the flow-through of a medium are not considered as "own" ignition source in the sense of directive 94/9/EC. 136

137 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 The Chair noted that the word simple valves had not been deleted on page 33 of the guidelines. It would be better to say valves with characteristics as described above. The group agreed to modify the guidelines accordingly. Action IX COM to inform CEIR on the outcome of the discussion on their conclusions. Action X COM to modify the guidelines on page 33 to read valves with characteristics as described above. Draft consideration paper Water trough barriers ATEX/05/2/4.5 The Chair introduced the draft paper which states that water trough barriers are to be seen as an assembly of a protective system and not as an installation. He then asked CZ to explain the state of play as to a request for an A-deviation in the draft harmonised standard, adding that A-deviations are not acceptable in standards under fully harmonising directives. CZ explained that the planned A-deviation would not refer to the product relevant part of the standard but to that dealing with the installation. CZ added that the last sentence of the draft, stating that in many cases the user would be a de-facto manufacturer in the sense of directive 94/9/EC, would be problematic. PL agreed with CZ. These statements gave rise to a discussion on the borderline between installation and manufacturing for own use. CEN stated that the standards would be reviewed as to requirements falling under directive 1999/92/EC, avoiding any necessity for A-deviations. In conclusion, it appeared that without having the standards in question finalised it was not possible to decide whether water trough barriers are to be considered as installations or as assemblies of protective systems, and to finalise a consideration paper. COM stressed that as soon as such products where considered in scope of directive 94/9/EC and the standards harmonised no national deviations or additional requirements could be accepted. Therefore the Consultant was asked to look at the situation and report back as soon as possible. Action XI The Consultant to report on the development on standards for water trough barriers and to check for possible requirements not in scope of directive 94/9/EC. Application of the directive to Fork Lift Trucks ATEX/05/2/4.6 DE introduced the paper. In essence, it clarifies that a forklift truck must be placed on the market by a single responsible person. It is not acceptable that there are more than one CE markings, EC 137

138 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 declarations of conformity, etc. leaving it unclear who is responsible for the overall compliance of the product. FR confirmed that the latter situation did happen. UK pointed out that, considering the often complex circumstances related to the placing on the market, it would be better to speak about the responsible person instead of the manufacturer. ES added that two cases should be distinguished: Firstly, the substantial modification of a FLT already placed on the market and brought into compliance with the ATEX directive when already in use; a case already covered by Community guidance (see chapter 2.1 of the Guide to the Implementation of Directives Based on New Approach and Global Approach the so called Blue Guide ). Secondly, the first placing on the market of an ATEX compliant FLT, which is the case discussed above. The group agreed that the applicable conformity assessment procedures should not be described in a consideration paper, but only the relevant articles or annexes cited. Also issues clearly concerning OH&S should not be discussed in this paper because they were subject to national regulations. Some aspects could be fed into standardisation, especially at completing clauses on the instructions for use. DE and COM will draft a paper to be uploaded for a 4 weeks circulation and which takes the discussion into account. Action XII DE and COM to draft a paper for a 4 weeks circulation. Assessment of safety devices ATEX/05/2/4.7 NO introduced the paper and stressed the need for clarification in order to proceed in a coherent way with the drafting of standards under way in IEC. COM pointed out that on page 42 the new guide is quiet clear: the safety devices are assessed according to the equipment group and category of the system consisting of the safety device and the equipment under control. According to means that exactly those procedures have to be followed, which apply to the controlled equipment. The group confirmed that: the situation is clear, if the device is part of the equipment; for devices separately placed on the market the intended use is decisive; the intended use of such devices must be defined by the manufacturer; according to this defined intended use the conformity assessment suitable for the equipment, the safety of which depends on the device, or which is controlled or regulated must be applied. As to the marking of safety devices the directive does not impose specific requirements. Following the approach adopted in the second edition of the guide the group will not suggest any solutions, but standardisation could agree on possible additional marking. NO accepted the conclusions and will feed it back into standardisation. Are safety devices different from safety related devices? Question from PL 138

139 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 PL pointed out that in Annex II to the directive both terms are used. In Poland the current national legislation makes a difference, applying less stringent requirements to safety related devices. By the end of the year the legislation would be amended and clarification was needed in order to assure coherence with the interpretation agreed on Community level. The group confirmed the COM position stating that there was no difference intended by the European legislator. The inconsistent wording in Annex II is regrettable but has no impact. Safety related devices are exactly the same as safety devices. Results of the Ad-hoc WG for the revision of the consideration paper on Gas Turbines ATEX/05/2/4.8 The Chair introduced the draft, which aimed at bringing the original paper in conformity with the second edition of the guide and clarified its relationship to the Machinery Directive. He thanked the members of the Ad-hoc group whose constructive approach allowed having a final draft ready for this meeting. EUnited Turbines suggested clarifying the third indent of section 1. It is actually a gaseous fuel supply giving rise to potentially explosive atmospheres. This was agreed by those present. The group was also of the opinion that section 2 did not make it clear that ATEX compliant equipment must be used, where applicable, inside a gas turbine. The sentence referring to relevant chapters of the guideline should therefore be amended. The Chair agreed to add such a clarification and to upload the draft for a 4 weeks circulation. However, only comments on the two amendments will be taken into account. The rest of the document was approved by the group. Action XIII COM to amend the draft as discussed and to upload it for a 4 weeks circulation. Amended paper on Bucket elevators ATEX/05/2/4.9 FR introduced the amended draft. The group approved it with two changes in the last paragraph: No specific solution for avoiding the transmission of an explosion to the whole process should be specified, because this would limit the choice for other possible technical solutions; The last sentence should be deleted, because it could be misleading. It was agreed to upload the paper with these amendments on the website. Action XIV COM to upload amended paper as discussed on the Commission website. 5. Progress on standardisation Report of the ATEX Consultant Oral report 139

140 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 Mr Dill reported that in his first 8 months he had assessed 6 standards for the electrical and 25 for the non-electrical sector. In the electrical sector some of the standards had received a negative assessment, mainly due to some problems with the Annex Z. From the CEN standards 10 received a negative vote, whilst 15 were approved. It can be said that CEN/TC 305 had now developed full set of standards for the mechanical sector thanks to the hard work carried out by those concerned in the past years. As far as CLC/TC 31 is concerned, as soon as some minor problems due to the transition from IEC to EN standards are solved all types of protection would be covered. Standardisation work in CEN/TC 305 Verbal report chairman CEN/TC 305 Mr Radandt gave an overview over the state of play in CEN/TC 305. This report is annexed to these minutes (Annex VI). Standardisation work in CLC/TC 31 Verbal Report chairman CLC/TC 31 Mr Sinclair reported that at present most electrical ATEX standards come from IEC. However, this did not mean that Europe had no influence. In the contrary, the European input was decisive for the content of these standards. For example, IEC has taken on board the categories as defined in the ATEX directive bringing them on international level. CENELEC was trying to keep IEC and EN standards as similar as possible, in order to avoid common modifications necessary when IEC standards are not fully correspondent to the ESHRs of the European directives. At present there are some problems as to the publication of Annex Z on the CLC website which will hopefully be resolved soon. Publication of new standards in the OJEU Verbal report COM The Chair explained that the latest publication had been delayed due to problems related to Annex Z. In particular, the Annex Zs of the CEN standards EN 13616, EN and EN , all from 2004, were not in line with the agreements between the Commission and the ESOs. Consequently, corrigenda have been requested. On the 30 th November the new list without the above standards and without new CENELEC standards was published. As soon as the updated CENLELC list as well as the relevant Annex Zs were available on the website and an agreement is reached with CEN a new publication will be issued. Repair and maintenance of ATEX equipment: Lack of requirements for adequate instructions (DK) ATEX/05/2/5.1 Only DK submitted a comment (ATEX/05/2/5.1) on the COM request from the last meeting. It was clear, however, that the issue of instructions for use was in general not considered in the past as it is today; the consultant should monitor this aspect thoroughly during his assessments. 140

141 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 Action XV The Consultant to check carefully the requirements concerning instructions for use when assessing new standards. Possible mandate on Pumps of Natural Gas filling stations Update of pren Verbal report COM Currently pren is mandated only under the Pressure Equipment Directive. The requirements are not yet completely in line with ATEX requirements and so the standard could not be listed in the OJEU under ATEX. To make the standard suitable also for listing under the ATEX Directive, a mandate should be issued. Action XVI COM to draft a mandate for CEN. 6 Co-operation between Notified Bodies Verbal Report Chairman ExNBG The relationship between the group and ExNBG was already discussed in detail under item 3 of the agenda. Mr Jockers added that due to the postponement of the ExNBG meeting no further information relevant for the ATEX Standing Committee WG is available. The Chair informed the group that the new contract for the technical secretariat will be ready for signature in the next days and that VdTÜV will continue to carry out that task. Marking after voluntary certification (DK) ATEX/05/2/6.1 DK introduced the paper. The Danish authorities reminded those present that there is an agreement not to mark equipment, which was certified on a voluntary basis for compliance with the ATEX directive, with the Notified Bodies number. Therefore such equipment and the related certificate should also not contain a reference to the certificate number. Considering that the directive does not mention the certificate number, the group did not share this opinion. It was confirmed that any misleading information is to be avoided, but as the directive did not mention this particular issue, specific guidance could not be given. DK accepted that conclusion. 7 Report by Chair ADCO The ATEX ADCO met on 30th November 2005 and was chaired by the UK. Oral report UK 141

142 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 Items discussed included bucket elevators, fork lift trucks, items manufactured for own use, a table of various Member States' penalties and the marking of equipment not covered by directive 94/9/EC. Market Surveillance issues included: - ATEX vacuum cleaners (a complaint needing further details prior to investigation) - a potentially dangerous impact screwdriver (required further investigation by the Member State's authorities) - methods of gathering information on non-electrical apparatus It was noted that the 2nd Edition of the ATEX Guidelines had been approved and that several items on the ADCO agenda were also to be discussed at the next ATEX Standing Committee. Sweden will assume the Chair for 2006 with the first meeting provisionally set for 21st & 22nd June in Esbjerg. 8 Interface to ATEX 137 Directive The Chair reported about a meeting with the colleagues from DG EMPL/D4 on 28 th November The following issues were discussed and the position of DG EMPL/D4 is as below: a) Modification for safety reasons but the duty remains the same or Change of the existing duty as long as zoning is not changed it can be done after due risk assessment according to Directive 1999/92/EC; if zoning changes, directive 94/9/EC must be applied. b) Spare parts if a spare part is in scope it must be 94/9/EC compliant; only if not available, non-compliant parts can be used after due risk assessment in the sense of Directive 1999/92/EC; this is true also for a replacement by identical, original parts. Article 1(3) of Directive 1999/92/EC emphasises the application of directive 89/391/EEC and relevant individual directives which require the use of CE marked equipment, when applicable. c) Guidelines e.g. for repair such specific guidelines cannot be developed by DG EMPL, because this issue is subject to possibly more stringent national regulations. d) WG under the Advisory Committee on Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection at Work (ACSH) in order to tackle issues as those above the colleagues in DG EMPL saw no possibility to establish such a WG for the following reasons: - EMPL/D4 manages 30 directives and 80 meetings per year; - Resources are very limited; - It would be obligatory to create a tripartite group; but such groups are very difficult to establish and finding a quick consensus is not always easy. The colleagues therefore suggested that the Committee and WG under directive 94/9/EC should convey via DG ENTR issues as those mentioned above to DG EMPL; they could then 142

143 XIV. 1 DECEMBER 2005 be discussed by the Commission services via video conference and the results reported back to the Member States and stakeholders of this group. The group appreciated the proposal for co-operation with DG EMPL. However, some of the reported positions appeared not to be in line with the interpretation and implementation of directive 1999/92/EC in most if not all of the Member States. So an Ad-hoc group of interested members would regularly discuss questions of interface and those touching the grey zone among the two ATEX directives. The conclusions drawn could then be agreed in this group and discussed with DG EMPL as described before. DK, NO, FR, PL, SE, DE and EUnited Turbines were ready to participate in this Ad-hoc group. Action XVII COM to initiate the work of an Ad-hoc group for issues of interface and the grey zone between directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC. 10 AOB No further items were discussed. 11 Confirmation of next meeting dates The next meeting dates agreed are: 29 th June th November 2006 Dates to be confirmed as usual 4 weeks before! 143

144 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Aerospace, security, defence and equipment Mechanical and electrical equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 29 th June 2006 Subject: Place: Chair: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Ms. Maria SPILIOPOULOU-KAPARIA, Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/H5) COMM Participants: Mr. David EARDLEY, Mr. Fabrizio SACCHETTI (ENTR/H5), Ms Birgit WEIDEL (ENTR/C1) 0. Welcome and communications The Chair welcomed those present, introduced the European Commission officials including Mr. Gabrielli Cossellu as the new responsible of the ATEX Directive and clarified that the meeting had been formed as a Working Group and not a formal Standing Committee given the nature of the agenda. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/06/1/01 rev.1 The Chair introduced the draft Agenda, which included a large number of interpretation questions on the Directive. The UNITED KINGDOM requested the subjects of water trough barriers and bucket elevators to be discussed. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) requested the subject of how to deal with the revision of a standard also to be discussed. The Chair agreed on adding those two subjects at the end of the Agenda, to be discussed under point 8 Any other business. With these amendments, the draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting of 1 st December 2005 Doc. ATEX/06/1/02 The minutes of the meeting held on 1 st December 2005 were approved without amendment.

145 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 The Chair went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I COMM to modify the ATEX website according to ExNBG sheets noted. ExNBG sheets noted had been uploaded to the ATEX website 1 in EUROPA on February The rest of signed sheets would be submitted by ExNBG. Action II ExNBG to submit the signed version of the above mentioned 34 sheets to the Commission services. See Action I. This would be further discussed under point 5 of the Agenda. Action III ExNBG to carry out the relevant actions in Annex IV to these minutes. Regarding ExNB01-103CS, CZECH REPUBLIC agreed to give feedback to ExNBG on those elements already covered by standards (projects). COMM will help to identify parts covered by the guidelines. This is to be discussed under point 5 of the Agenda. Action IV COMM to prepare draft consideration papers or proposals to amend the guidelines based on clarification sheets to be withdrawn. This had been discussed and a proposal had been made at point 3 of the Agenda. Action V The NETHERLANDS to investigate which of sheets dealing with very old standards could give rise to serious problems and provide for feedback to ExNBG. These had been handed to the Chair of ExNBG prior to the meeting. Action VI COMM to upload the paper on Marking of components with the Notified Body s number and to organise a formal approval by the Standing Committee set up under Art. 6 of the Directive. This had been circulated to the Committee for formal approval (written procedure) at the end of January Only two negatives responses had been received (CYPRUS and SPAIN) and as such the paper had been approved. It had been uploaded in its final version as a Consideration Paper 2 in March Action VII COMM to amend the Guidelines for simple electrical products as agreed. 1 ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Standing Committee: 2 Shall components subject to NB assessment required by the Directive be marked with the Notified Body s number? 145

146 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 This had been done, adding a new first paragraph to Chapter of the ATEX Guidelines. Action VIII COMM to upload the amended paper on filter units. This had been uploaded as a Consideration Paper 4 in February Action IX COMM to inform CEIR on the outcome of the discussion on their conclusions. Completed in December January Action X COMM to modify the Guidelines on page 33 to read valves with characteristics as described above. Completed in January 2006, in Chapter 5.2.1, last paragraph 3. Action XI The CEN/CENELEC Consultant to report on the development on standards for water trough barriers and to check for possible requirements not in scope of Directive 94/9/EC. This item would be taken when looking at standardisation (point 4 of the Agenda). Action XII GERMANY and COMM to draft a paper on Fork Lift Trucks for a 4 weeks circulation. This had been circulated for the required four weeks and then uploaded onto the ATEX website in EUROPA as a Consideration Paper 5 in February Action XIII COMM to amend the draft on Gas Turbines as discussed and to upload it for a 4 weeks circulation. This had been circulated for the required four weeks and then uploaded onto the ATEX website in EUROPA as a Consideration Paper 6 in February Action XIV COMM to upload amended paper on Bucket elevators as discussed on the Commission website. This had been uploaded as a Consideration Paper 7 in February Simple products 4 How should the Directive be applied to filter units? (revised version) 5 Fork lift trucks intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres 6 ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and its application to gas turbines (revised version) 146

147 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 Action XV The Consultant to check carefully the requirements concerning instructions for use when assessing new standards. This item would be taken when looking at standardisation (point 4 of the Agenda). Action XVI COMM to draft a mandate on Pumps of Natural Gas filling stations for CEN. This had been drafted and would be presented at point 4 of the Agenda, to collects comments from those present. Further comments were in the process of being collected from the formal Committee and from CEN and the Consultant. Action XVII COMM to initiate the work of an Ad-hoc group for issues of interface and the grey zone between Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC. The group worked in February-April 2006; a report had been produced and it would be presented and discussed at point 7 of the Agenda. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions More precise guidance for conformity assessment procedures for assemblies (such as ATEX Fork Lift Trucks ) Doc. ATEX/06/1/03 The Chair reminded the Group that a paper on fork lift trucks had been agreed approved (Doc. ATEX/06/1/03) after a 4-weeks circulation period in CIRCA, and it had been uploaded to the EUROPA website as Consideration Paper Fork lift trucks intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The Chair draw the attention of those present to another paper (ATEX-ADCO 09(04)02-DE) which had been prepared to deal with the wider issue of how to consider assemblies with regard to conformity assessment. The NETHERLANDS returned on the paper ATEX/06/1/03 and considered that the wording at point B of the paper was confusing, as it may appear to suggest that all fork lift trucks in use would need to be amended according to the Directive. The UNITED KINGDOM said that the text at point B was over-complicated and that there was also a third scenario where someone other than the original manufacturers modifies the truck, so as to be used in potentially explosive atmospheres. GERMANY said that the paper had been produced to reinforce the message that there should only be one person responsible for compliance. The representative went on to say that point B was superfluous. 7 How are bucket elevators to be treated within the framework of Directive 94/9/EC especially in respect that in the surrounding area of bucket elevators potentially explosive areas are not necessarily present? 147

148 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 Mr. Eardley (COMM) suggested that if this was the objective that point B be deleted, but a sentence be added making it clear that if a fork lift (as an assembly) is modified to ensure suitability for use in such an atmosphere, the directive must be complied with. FRANCE said that if the assembly were re-conditioned in this way, all relevant directives would need to be complied with. The NETHERLANDS suggested combining the two papers so as to deal with the more generic issues of compliance of assemblies. The Chair proposed to withdraw the paper ATEX/06/1/03 as it stood, to delete point B and to add the sentence as proposed, and then re-circulate it for approval in CIRCA (4-weeks circulation period). This was accepted by the Committee. Action I COMM to re-draft paper as agreed and circulate by written procedure. Inclusion of the content of several ExNBG sheets into the ATEX Guidelines Proposal Doc. ATEX/06/1/04 The Chair introduced a paper drafted by COMM based on a number of ExNBG Clarification Sheets, to be included as additional paragraphs into the ATEX Guidelines. a) What is a potentially explosive atmosphere? (former ExNB/02/111/CS) DENMARK asked for clarification in respect of the second bullet indicated that only the outside parts of the vacuum pump fell within scope of the directive. Mr. Eardley (COMM) said that this was generally the case, although it was agreed that a footnote is to be added to make explicit that the complete working cycle needs to be considered, including start-up and shut-down, which may cause a normal atmosphere to exist. In addition, it was agreed to amend the wording in the note to make it clear that this was for use under atmospheric conditions. Action II COMM to amend accordingly and circulate for four weeks prior to approval. 9.3 Subcontracting (former ExNB/99/100/CS) SLOVENIA emphasised that this was under the principle of subsidiarity and that the bodies were beholden to the national authorities in this respect. It was therefore very difficult to write such guidance in a sectorial document. It was also pointed out that the text being proposed could already be mostly founding the Commission s Blue Guide 8. POLAND agreed with SLOVENIA and supposed the current working in the guide on this subject. 8 Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach 148

149 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 The NETHERLANDS said that the bodies could subcontract according to the parameters laid down in the relevant standards. The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with the text and highlighted an error in fourth line to all relevant annexes TV (for IV). Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) said that the Committee would need to think carefully if the text diverted away from the Blue Guide. SPAIN said that the text might lead to confusion and that the same approach needed to be taken with bodies inside or outside the Community. GERMANY agreed with SPAIN. Mr. Eardley (COMM) pointed out that there were already international agreements (IECEx) which did now lead to the ready acceptability of text results from outside of the Community. The Chair accepted that this was a horizontal issue, to be carefully analysed, and it was best to withdraw the proposal for re-consideration. 9.5 Notified Bodies having knowledge of faulty equipment on the market (former ExNB/99/081/CS) The UNITED KINGDOM asked that the term equipment be amended to product in line with the guide. DENMARK recommended that this was more of an issue between the national authorities and the Notified Bodies, rather than an item for inclusion in the Guidelines. FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS supported the view of DENMARK. GERMANY and SLOVENIA considered the text to be useful. DENMARK pointed out that there were only certain obligations that could be placed on NBs operating as such; in this case the text fell outside of required obligations. It also might lead to the incorrect impression that NBs were involved in market surveillance. FRANCE agreed with DENMARK. POLAND agreed that the text could be improved but it would be helpful to infer that bodies should pass on such information. The UNITED KINGDOM identified the need to ensure that there was a clear distinction between market surveillance activities and those of the NBs but also was of the opinion that such information would be valuable for surveillance authorities. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) considered that the text was not suitable for the Guidelines. HUNGARY supported the view that a clear line should be drawn between market surveillance and conformity assessment activities. The Chair, in light of the comments made, proposed to soften the wording of the text, but pointed out that the paper had been agreed by the NBs themselves and that there was little to lose to putting 149

150 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 it in the Guidelines, so long as it was made even more clear that the responsibility for market surveillance rested solely on the national authorities and that this was not an obligation. It was agreed to re-word and circulate a revised draft. It was also considered useful for a letter to be sent by the authorities to each Body along these lines. Action III COMM to re-word text and circulate for approval (four weeks) Acceptance of test results of manufacturers by a Notified Body (former ExNB/98/068/CS) SLOVENIA pointed out that it was only in the ATEX sector where such guidance was being considered. AUSTRIA pointed out that under the EMC Directive the involvement of a NB was now being reduced to a paper assessment. The UNITED KINGDOM highlighted the penultimate paragraph and referred to the directive itself where it states (Annex 3-4.2/4.3) 9 to perform or have performed. There would need to be justification to have all the safety relevant tests performed again. DENMARK supported the view of the UNITED KINGDOM. The Chair agreed Documents issued by a Notified Body (former ExNB/00/020/CS) Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) clarified that the hexagon (Ex mark) here was to be used on the product. SLOVENIA asked that the term Type Examination Certificate be amended. Mr. Eardley (COMM) suggested that all explicit reference to a title for the voluntary certificate should be suppressed, clarifying that the relevant CS should be withdrawn. This was agreed. Action IV COMM to amend as agreed and introduce the paper into the Guidelines Marking of equipment with the name and address of the person responsible for placing it on the market and/or putting it into service (former ExNB/02/121/CS) The UNITED KINGDOM considered the opening sentence slightly misleading, concerning the marking of equipment when placed on the market by an authorized representative. He referred to Annex II to the Directive, clause , and proposed to amend the first sentence accordingly perform or have performed the appropriate examinations and necessary tests to check whether the solutions adopted by the manufacturer meet the essential requirements of the Directive where the standards referred to in Article 5 have not been applied; 4.3. perform or have performed the appropriate examinations and necessary tests to check whether these have actually been applied, where the manufacturer has chosen to apply the relevant standards Marking 150

151 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 With the amendment proposed by the UNITED KINGDOM, the paper was agreed. Gas detectors with measuring devices (including content of ExNB/02/112/CS) Doc. ATEX/06/1/05 The Chair requested Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) to introduce the paper, clarifying its state of revision. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) confirmed that the text was the latest draft prepared ( ) and it should be further improved, taking into account most recent discussion with COMM. GERMANY pointed out that this was still a working document and might be better for consideration at a later date. The Chair agreed on withdraw the paper in order to let ExNBG further improve the text. Action V Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) to continue to prepare the text for consideration at the next meeting. Flameproof enclosures (based on ExNB/00/035/CS) Doc. ATEX/06/1/06 The Chair presented the paper, as the draft revision of Clarification Sheet ExNB/00/035/CS, to propose it as a Consideration Paper. DENMARK thought that the paper did not deal with an issue of interpretation and recommended that it remain an ExNBG Clarification Sheet. FRANCE said that the text should be amended to indicate shall rather than should. Mr. Eardley (COMM) pointed out that it could not be amended in this fashion as it would appear to render voluntary standards mandatory. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) was uncertain as to why the paper had been tabled. It was clarified that the reason for considering the subject was the practice of some NBs to allow self-declaration of such enclosures. The Chair agreed to withdraw the paper and, together with the NETHERLANDS, to provide text clarifying the issue under scrutiny. Action VI COMM and the NETHERLANDS to prepare text for circulation (four weeks). Coherence of the consideration paper on Petrol Pumps with the revised ATEX Guidelines All equipment and protective systems must be marked legibly and indelibly with the following minimum particulars: - name and address of the manufacturer, - CE marking (see Annex X, point A), - designation of series or type, - serial number, if any, - year of construction, - the specific marking of explosion protection followed by the symbol of the equipment group and category, - for equipment-group II, the letter 'G' (concerning explosive atmospheres caused by gases, vapours or mists), and/or the letter 'D' (concerning explosive atmospheres caused by dust). Furthermore, where necessary, they must also be marked with all information essential to their safe use. 151

152 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 The Chair explained that the question concerned the Consideration paper on Petrol pumps 11 considered as Category 2 and page 13 of the ATEX Guidelines: it should be confirmed that petrol pumps fall in any case in case 2c) 12. GERMANY requested to look again at this paragraph. The Chair agreed. Action VII COMM to provide amended text for consideration (four weeks). Follow-up on manufacturing for own use - German answer - correct English version of COMM letter Doc. ATEX/06/1/08 The Chair confirmed that correct English version of COMM letter to German authorities (24/11/2005) had been attached to the Draft Meeting Report of the previous meeting, as Annex IIb. Then, he reminded those present of the current situation. COMM had launched an enquiry in March 2006 about enforcement in the Member States and to get opinions on the specific question, asking other national authorities if they agreed with the GERMANY view that products manufactured for own use did not fall under the ATEX Directive. Responses had been provided by 3 Member States, apart the one by GERMANY: DENMARK, HUNGARY and the UNITED KINGDOM. They provided different levels of information, and the effect was that these Member States did not agree. SLOVENIA confirmed that this was also the case on its own territory. They announced a formal sending to COMM with their position. See Annex III. The Chair encouraged the other authorities to communicate their national practices in this respect after which time it would consider which further steps would need to be taken. Mr. Sacchetti (COMM) explained the position of the Commission services, also supported by inter-service and legal consultations, as stated in the mentioned letter to German authorities, as well as in the enquiry launched in March 2006: products defined in Article 1(1)-(3) must be submitted to the relevant conformity assessment procedures foreseen in the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, even if they are manufactured for own use only. COMM would decide to take next action very soon. Ms. Weidel (COMM) added that this issue would not be further clarified by the revision to the New and Global Approach and that the COMM view would remain as is. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chair explained that the latest publication had taken place on 9 th March 2006 and that a further list by CEN had been received in April 2006 which had not been published. It was hoped that this might take place in the next few weeks, in July 2006, including also the new list by CENELEC. 11 Petrol pumps c) If there is an additional ignition hazard as a result of assembling pump and motor, or if one item is not already in full conformity with the directive, the assembly has to undergo the complete conformity assessment procedure appropriate for the category. 152

153 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 Mr. Dill, ATEX CEN/CELEC Consultant, in response to the Chair, confirmed that the next list by CENELEC should be received in July Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented an oral report on ATEX standardisation. See Annex II (written report, provided after the meeting). Standardisation work in CEN/TC 305 Doc. ATEX/06/1/09 Mr. Sinclair (CEN TC 305) presented the written report, mentioning the constitution and organisation of CEN/TC 305, plenary meetings, published European standards, Technical Reports and project stages. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX/06/1/10 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) presented the content of the written report, including a table on the state of play of standards and their harmonisation. In addition, he explained that now very little work was going on at the EU level as almost all standards had now been taken up by IEC maintenance teams. This meant that with the fiver-year review any further amendments to the standard would take at least this long in order to start being introduced. Most solely EN standards had now been deleted with only one remaining that on intrinsic safety which was due for publication towards the end of this year. Nearly all had been passed by the consultant but would still need to be published. Possible mandate on Pumps of Natural Gas filling stations - Update of pren Doc. ATEX/06/1/12 The Chair said that a draft mandate concerning pren had been produced in view to issue it to CEN. Currently, the draft standard was mandated only under the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED), but requirements were not yet completely in line with ATEX requirements: the standard could not be listed in the OJEU under the ATEX Directive. A response was requested to CEN. Ms. Missiroli (CEN) responded that TC 326 appeared to be of the opinion that it was best to publish now under the PED and to re-visit it in the future to bring it in line with the EHSRs of the ATEX directive. The Chair clarified that the mandate dealt with design and manufacture only, and did not cover aspects such as explosion risks assessment. Further contacts would be kept between COMM, CEN and the Consultant on this issue. Information on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE Doc. ATEX/06/1/11 The Chair briefly introduced the paper, for information purpose only, submitted by GERMANY at the last session (19-21 June 2006) of the Working Party on regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). It concerned a sectorial initiative, proposing a scheme including specific approval, accreditation and 13 pren NGV filling stations 153

154 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 certification procedures in the framework of international legal requirements for explosion protection. 5. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) said that the last meeting of the Notified Bodies had taken place on th December Of particular interest was the possibility of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Group and the IECEx scheme. The group had also considered the following issues: - The use of CIRCA in order to share information on certificates. - The letter from COMM regarding the responsibilities of the NBs in respect of the certificates the bodies have issued. It was generally accepted that whilst the manufacturer is responsible for the overall compliance the Bodies are responsible for the certificate. - How to react in the case where a standard has been revised. A specific Working Group had been set up to consider this issue. - As requested by COMM, there was an ongoing review of Clarification Sheets. - It was agreed that further work was required on marking as well as maintenance requirements. 6. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO DENMARK (Chair of ATEX ADCO) provided a summary of the ADCO meeting held in Esbjerg (Denmark) on June There were quite a large number of items on the agenda, not all of them related to market surveillance and information exchange between Member States, but also concerning other questions to be discussed in next Standing Committee and Working Group meetings. The most important issues discussed were related to: - Last version of Rules of Procedures and new tools to improve formal and informal communication and cooperation (CIRCA folder for open knowledge sharing, ad-hoc electronic working groups). - Current market surveillance and safeguard actions by Member States, especially in respect of products made for own use. - Conformity assessment procedures, for specific equipment, products and assemblies: categorization (category 2 and category 3) and list of examples. - Market surveillance information exchange, codification and uniform procedures. - Interface between 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC. Next ADCO meeting would be held in Brussels in November

155 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 See also the Draft Minutes of the meeting in ATEX ADCO CIRCA Group Interface to ATEX 137 Directive Report by the Ad-hoc working group on workplace issues Doc. ATEX/06/1/07 The Chair presented a paper developed by the Ad-hoc group of Member States and industry representatives: DENMARK, FRANCE, GERMANY, SWEDEN, EUnited Turbines, and COMM, after the meeting held in Brussels on 23 March When approved by the Standing Committee, these conclusions could be included in the ATEX Guidelines, or adopted as Consideration Paper on the question. DENMARK asked that the text be developed for discussion at the next meeting and possible introduction into the Guidelines. Mr. Kremer and Mr. Pommel (EUnited Turbines) appreciated the paper, but asked that the following text be added to Chapter 4, point b): The user may need to contact the original manufacturer to ensure due diligence has been taken. SLOVENIA proposed to use, for non-compliant spare parts, specific labels to clearly identify them. Mr. Eardley (COMM) said that, in respect of that part of the text dealing with the use of noncompliant spare parts, this could not be accepted by COMM who requested that the surveillance authorities should consider its position in respect of the line taken and communicate this to EUnited Turbines. He thought that the issue should be discussed at ADCO, as the most appropriate forum, concerning national authorities. The Chair proposed to split the paper in two parts. The first part would be re-drafted including the suggestion by EUnited Turbines, and would be submitted to the next Working Group for approbation; the second part, Chapter 4 point c) dealing with the use of non-compliant spare parts, would be analysed and consulted with the legal services of the Commission as well as other sectors (such as Lifts and Cableways), in order to submit a re-draft paper to the next ADCO meeting. This was agreed. Action VIII COMM to re-draft the paper as agreed, splitting it in two parts. 8. Any other business Bucket elevator/ Water troughs The UNITED KINGDOM pointed out that these were still two outstanding items for discussion and that action had been requested from members which had not been completed

156 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 The Chair agreed to take this up again at the next meeting Action IX COMM to identify action points and liaise with those concerned with a view to tabling papers at the next Working Party. Revision of harmonised standards Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) said that this was an ongoing issue that still required attention, i.e. guidance was required as to the obligations on both NBs and manufacturers when standards are revised; in particular, the question of a timeframe to update certificates. Reference to paper ADCO/09(04)02 was made to reinforce the strong argument that a revision of a standard did not mean in all cases that re-certification was necessary. SLOVENIA recalled that the declaration of conformity should be referred to harmonised standards in the consolidated lists in force to get presumption of conformity, and in any case manufacturers should carry out the risk assessment with regard to the EHSRs of the Directive. AUSTRIA pointed out that although re-certification might not be automatic, it would mean the technical documentation would need to be re-visited as the presumption of conformity would no longer be applied and justification needed to ensure compliance with the EHSRs. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) said that its offer to identify any substantive changes which might lead to re-consideration of compliance was still on the table. They would draft a list for re-examination of conformity in ATEX equipment. The Chair accepted this offer and agreed to send a letter to this effect to CEN and CENELEC. The NETHERLANDS welcomed such list, considering that as crucial with regard to certification. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) would develop a paper on this subject for consideration at the next meeting. GERMANY volunteered to cooperate with ExNBG in developing the paper. Action X CENELEC draft a list for re-examination of conformity in ATEX equipment. Action XI COMM to send letter to CEN and CENELEC requesting that identification is made of standards that have been revised such that this amendment may lead to a substantial change in the state of the art relating to health and safety. Action XII ExNBG and GERMANY to prepare a paper to be discussed at the next meeting. 9. Next meeting dates 156

157 XV. 29 JUNE 2006 The next provisional meeting date was set for 30 th November 2006, with the ATEX ADCO meeting to take place the day before, in Brussels. 157

158 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Aerospace, security, defence and equipment Mechanical and electrical equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 30 th November 2006 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/H5) COMM Participants: Ms. Maria SPILIOPOULOU-KAPARIA, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Mr. David EARDLEY, Mr. Fabrizio SACCHETTI (ENTR/H5), Ms. Natalie CHEVALLIER (ENTR/H1) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the European Commission participants, Mr. Eardley as former responsible of the ATEX Directive, and Mr. Merz as deputy to the ATEX Directive. He clarified that this Experts Working Group meeting would be followed by a formal Standing Committee meeting, given the nature of the agenda and the items to be discussed and submitted to approbation. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/06/2/01 rev.2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) proposed, for Any other business, a point concerning instructions manual which could be provided also in electronic format, such as CD-ROM. The Chairperson agreed on discussing the subject at point 7 Any other business. With this addition, the draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting of 29 th June 2006 Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/02 The minutes of the meeting held on 29 th June 2006 were approved without amendment. The Chairperson went through the action points agreed at the last meeting, as follows: Action I

159 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 COMM to re-draft paper as agreed and circulate by written procedure. The Chairperson reported that the Consideration Paper on Fork Lift Trucks had been removed from the web in August 2006 and a revised version (taking into account also the German proposal for ADCO and conformity assessment procedures) had been uploaded to CIRCA and submitted to 4-weeks period circulation on 6/10/2006. A comment from DENMARK had been received. It has been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved as Consideration Paper. Actions II, III and IV COMM to amend as agreed and re-word the text accordingly, and circulate for four weeks prior to approval. The Chairperson reported that it has been done and uploaded to CIRCA on 6/10/2006 for a 4- weeks period circulation. Comments from DENMARK, the NETHERLANDS and Orgalime had been received. The papers have been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved and included in the Guidelines. Action V Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) to continue to prepare the text for consideration at the next meeting. Mr Jockers (ExNBG) said that they had no time to prepare the document, in cooperation with GERMANY. They would organize a meeting and to carry out the work together. The Chairperson confirmed that the issue would be followed up at the next meeting. Action VI COMM and the NETHERLANDS to prepare text for circulation (four weeks). The Chairperson reported that a paper from the NETHRLANDS had been received on 1 st November It has been tabled in the Agenda as ATEX_WG/06/2/03 (Interpretation questions: Flameproof enclosures) to be discussed. Action VII COMM to provide amended text for consideration (four weeks). The Chairperson reported that the Consideration Paper on Petrol Pumps had been removed from the web in August 2006 and a revised version had been uploaded to CIRCA and submitted to 4- weeks period circulation on 9/10/2006. A comment from CZECH REPUBLIC had been received. It has been tabled at the Standing Committee meeting agenda, to be approved as Consideration Paper. Action VIII COMM to re-draft the paper as agreed, splitting it in two parts. The Chairperson reported that the document had been revised and spat in two parts: the first one, properly dealing with the interface between the ATEX directives, would be discussed at point 3 of the Agenda as doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/04; the second one related to spare parts was to be further discussed as an horizontal issue, in order to prepare a specific paper together with other sectors such as Lifts and Cableways, as well as EMC in some cases. 159

160 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Mr. Eardley (Commission) confirmed the horizontal interest of the issue, comparing with practices in other sectors. He recalled the EMC Guide, which allowed those specific non-compliant spare parts because it was allowed by the EMC Directive itself, for specific installations. But, as an horizontal issue, it should be considered also by the Legal Service of the Commission. Action IX COMM to identify action points and liaise with those concerned with a view to tabling papers at the next Working Party. The Chairperson confirmed that these issues had been discussed with Mr. Dill, CEN/CENELEC Consultant, and docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/05 and ATEX_WG/06/2/06 would be submitted at point 3, presenting last findings on water through barriers. Action X and XI CENELEC draft a list for re-examination of conformity in ATEX equipment. COMM to send letter to CEN and CENELEC requesting that identification is made of standards that have been revised such that this amendment may lead to a substantial change in the state of the art relating to health and safety. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) clarified that an indication for each new standard to be published was requested, specifying possible changes with regard to the state of the art. The exact way to include this indication should be defined: it was an on-going work. The Chairperson confirmed that the issue would be further discussed at point 4 Standardisation. Action XII ExNBG and GERMANY to prepare a paper to be discussed at the next meeting. The Chairperson confirmed that doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/13, prepared by ExNBG and Germany, would be discussed at the point "Revision of Harmonised Standards". 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Gas detectors with measuring devices (including content of ExNB/02/112/CS) Doc. ATEX/06/1/05 See Action point V. To be reported at the next meeting. Action I Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) and GERMANY to continue preparing the text for consideration at the next meeting. Flameproof enclosures (based on ExNB/00/035/CS) Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/03 The NETHERLANDS introduced the revised draft Consideration Paper regarding flameproof enclosures, and their findings after investigations with available documents on the subject. They suggested forwarding the paper to the ExNBG for further consideration. It was also related to other 160

161 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 point in the Agenda, item 7, Assembly of components: when assembling flameproof enclosures, certified as components, with other certified components, according to the ATEX Guidelines (table 1), the resulting assembly would not need further investigation from NBs. It appeared surprising, as NBs used to issue component certificates, as assemblies would need always further investigation from NBs. FRANCE remarked that, according to the Guidelines, when an assembly had no further risks, it would not need to be resubmitted to a NB; nevertheless it was only a partial assessment, not considering the overall safety of the equipment in question, so once the assembly was produced, it should go back to a NB. Mr Jockers (ExNBG) confirmed that certificated components would be needed to build an assembly and a risk assessment should be carried out on possible new risks in the assembly. But the notion of component or complementary equipment was not clearly defined. DENMARK shared the view of the NETHERLANDS. When components would be put together to create an equipment, this assembly as an equipment must undergo the relevant conformity assessment procedures, even if the components were certified. GERMANY agreed with the NETHELANDS and DENMARK. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) observed that definition of components in the Directive was not exactly the same in the standards, and it could cause some confusion when a component could be used to be incorporated in equipment. The NETHERLANDS recalled Table 1 of the Guidelines: it did not make any difference when putting together equipment and components with written attestation of conformity. It was not common use that such an assembly would not further investigated by a NB. ITALY supported the NETHERLANDS. These assemblies of components, with different configurations, could lead to very serious safety problems without the appropriate conformity assessment. GERMANY pointed out possible problems with German translation of the concept of component and assemblies. Mr. Eardley (Commission) clarified the difference between certificates of conformity for equipment and components. On one side, there was a type-examination certificate, meeting the requirements with regard to the use as foreseen by the manufacturer, including incorporation into assemblies, so it should be done just a risk assessment; for a component, there was an attestation of conformity, not knowing the possible intended use, so when included in an assembly, it would need further evaluation by a NB. Table 1 in the Guidelines was correct, but it would need further clarification, because using in the same terms certificate of conformity for equipment and components was not correct. He proposed to revise the wording of the table and maybe add a footnote, stating that an attestation of conformity for a component could not guarantee, in general, the safety of the equipment into which the component would be incorporated, as for a general component all possible use could not be foreseen, so further investigation and evaluation by a NB should be carried out. The Chairperson remarked the difference between equipment (as defined in the Directive) with CE mark and components with written attestation of conformity. He agreed on the suggestion by Mr. Eardley to revise and clarify Table 1 in the Guidelines. 161

162 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 GERMANY proposed an example with a flameproof enclosure and a cable gland, to clarify the difference between equipment and component in an assembly. SPAIN underlined that the characteristics of the component should be specified with regard to protection systems, in order to full comply the requirements of the Directive. Mr. Eardley (Commission) observed that sometimes it would not possible for NBs to say exactly how safety components would be used, so they put pre-conditions in the attestation of conformity: that was the gap between these components and equipment. The Chairperson concluded with the agreement to submit a revised Table 1 at the next meeting. Action II COMM to revise Table 1 of the Guidelines in order to clarify differences between safety components and equipment with regard to assemblies and conformity assessment. Interface to the ATEX workplace user Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/04 The Chairperson confirmed that the paper had been revised as agreed at the last meeting, removing the point related to non-compliant spare parts, and introduced its present contents. SPAIN expressed some remarks on point c). About substantial modifications, it could lead to confusion if literally read, by assessing only the modified part, when such an assessment should be carried out on the whole effects in the modified equipment. Furthermore, when the nature of the risk increases, it should be drafted more clearly, according to the New Approach guide, specifying the procedures to be applied as a new product with regards to the safety requirements. GERMANY agreed with the content of the paper, but still remarked their reservation about products manufactured for own use. In addition, they proposed to remove the three notes at the end of the paper, as their content was already included in previous point. Mr. Eardley (Commission) pointed out, at point 2, second page, that it should be not necessary to add environmental to health and safety reasons, for this kind of Directive. The Chairperson agreed to modify the wording in point c) of the document in order to clarify the situation with modifications and risks, being necessary to assess whether the whole equipment could be affected by any modification applied, and the nature and level of risk, with regard to the essential safety requirements. He also accepted the drafting comments from GERMANY and Mr. Eardley, and would revise the paper in that way. Action III COMM to modify the document as agreed. It would be submitted to written procedure in order to be formally approved (uploaded to CIRCA for 4-weeks period). Water through barriers by the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/05, ATEX_WG/06/2/06 Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) referred to the papers to explain that the problem related to water through barriers had been resolved, by the standardisation point of view, and that the draft Consideration Paper could be finally approved. 162

163 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 The UNITED KINGDOM remarked that water through barriers were very simple systems, but they were considered as protective systems, to be certified by NBs in a specific moment. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) clarified that the most important criteria for certification was the design of water through barrier, in the sense of Directive. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) supported Mr. Jockers on the conformity assessment procedures for these systems, to be properly assembled and installed according to the documentation. The Chairperson noted the agreement to adopt the Consideration Paper, taking into consideration the final version of the standard EN , to be published at beginning of 2007, as announced by Mr. Dill. Assembly for components - Question from NL Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/07 The Chairperson confirmed the position expressed in the previous point related to Flameproof enclosures and assemblies, and the agreement on revising Table 1 of the Guidelines. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson said that the latest publication had taken place on 20 th July 2006 (see EUROPA) 15 and that new lists by CEN had been received on 24 th October. Next publication of new consolidated lists in the OJEU would presumably take place in December 2006 also waiting for the next sending from CENELEC. The Netherlands asked for clarification on out-of-date standards still included in the consolidated list, as well as the short time of the date of cessation of old standards in some cases. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) said that it was purely a matter of timing between the production of standard and publication of its reference. The Chairperson also recalled the practical problems of edition and preparation of lists to be sent for publication, and consequentially possible mismatching in dates of publication and withdrawing of superseded standards. Standardisation work in CEN/TC 305 Mr. Radandt (CEN TC 305) presented the written report (recently provided and not yet uploaded to CIRCA: circulated at the meeting). Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) reported on the issue, stating that there were no significant change with regard to the previous meeting (no written report had been prepared)

164 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Mr. Eardley (Commission) asked CEN and CENELEC about the situation of harmonised standards with regard to international standards (identical, or any deviation) and the identification of changes related to the state of the art. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) explained that on the electrical side, almost all standards were technically identical, with only specific deviations in marking or instructions. International cooperation with IEC aimed to ensure a single coherent set of standards, in different fields related to explosion protection. Mr. Radandt (CEN) confirmed good cooperation also with ISO at international level. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also confirmed that no A-deviation were present in harmonised standards; in this fully harmonised field, A-deviations only could be permitted for very extraordinary situations (e.g. temperatures of equipment depending on European climate). Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/08 Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented the written report, summarised in very few key points. Revision of Harmonised Standards Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/13 GERMANY introduced the paper, drafted in cooperation with ExNBG, proposing modification of ATEX Guidelines According to the conclusion, point 10.3 dealt with the situation very comprehensively, rather in general terms, so there was no need to produce again an independent paper, further to the Guidelines. They draw the attention to more special cases, where changes in technology could result in harmonised standards, and their impact. Point 10.3 of the Guidelines should be left substantially unchanged, made it more specific in one passage only, as indicated in the proposal submitted. All interested parties should be involved in taking a decision about substantial changes and their effects in standards, with appropriate mechanisms. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) added that NBs had discussed the question at their last meeting, welcoming the proposed changes in the Guidelines. Furthermore, he remarked that when manufacturers could carry out a conformity assessment on his own, they should refer to the existing state of technology, not relying only on point 10.3, as it dealt with harmonised standards only. Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) appreciated the solution proposed by GERMANY. The NETHERLANDS also supported the paper. He asked for the status of the notes from the Senior Official Group on Standardisation (SOGS) on conformity assessment policy, about the new proposed text for revision of the standard modules. What was put for module B for type examination was not in line with the content of the document. Substantive developments in the state of the art should be noted not only by NBs, but generally acknowledged by the community of stakeholders. Mr. Eardley (Commission) said that the expression generally acknowledged state of the art normally presumed generally acknowledged by the stakeholders. About SOGS, their considerations had been included in the last papers on the revision of the New and Global Approach, currently open, to be sent from the Commission services to the Council and to the Parliament in the first quarter of 2007, starting the co-decision procedure in view of its approbation as legal reference. 164

165 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) remarked possible differences in language versions and interpretation of the paragraph proposed to be added to the Guidelines, in particular with regard to type-examination certification. AUSTRIA thought that part 13 of the Guidelines would apply to all conformity assessment procedures, and it should be considered too. GERMANY said that their proposal dealt with point 10.3, where NBs were referred for the first time, but it was connected also with other general points in the proceeding passages. Reference could be made not only in 10.3 but also in 13 in the Guidelines, as proposed by AUSTRIA, and in other passages. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) thought that the end of point 10.3 could remain as it was, being clear and comprehensive enough; but it could be said elsewhere too, what manufactures should do, with further references in the Guidelines. The Chairperson concluded the discussion remarking the importance to establish the principle of adaptation to the state of the art in the Guidelines, with regard to significant changes in harmonised standards. Noting the agreement to add the last part of the proposed paragraph to point 10.3 of the Guidelines, he proposed to start with this statement, and in the future, further discussions could be carried out on other possible addition to the Guidelines regarding this issue. This was agreed. Remarks on EN 1755: (Safety of industrial trucks) from the UK Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/09, ATEX_WG/06/2/10 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced their paper on static accumulation and discharge in fork lift trucks. The issue had been already discussion in previous ADCO meetings. The revision of the standard should begin immediately by relevant CEN TC, given the serious nature of the problem. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) introduced his paper, answering the previous one. He agreed on the need to update immediately the existing standard, but he disagreed with the UNITED KINGDOM about the application of a safeguard clause in this case, as the standard still met most of the essential safety requirements, only one element missing. The key discussion should be carried out on the consideration of ignition sources for category II or category I equipment. The UNITED KINGDOM appreciated the answer from Mr. Dill but remarked the clear risk of electrostatic accumulation of charge, and these aspects were still missing in the standard, not only when it was drafted but also in its revision. That could not be considered reasonable and the concerns would lead to an immediate safeguard clause, to no longer defer the question. Ms. Missiroli (CEN) said that the relevant CEN TC was not unwilling to cooperate, but they were unable to provide any answer at their last meeting: they need to further discuss the issue, also at national level, in order to find a solution. Mr. Eardley (Commission) clarified that it was not a safeguard action, but an objection against a standard. The formal procedure could take several months (with a Commission opinion to issue, etc.), so he asked the UNITED KINGDOM on the time they could give to CEN to discuss the question. There was a general agreement on a gap in the standard, so a solution could be reached as soon as possible, with good cooperation between all involved parties. 16 EN 1755:2000 Safety of industrial trucks - Operation in potentially explosive atmospheres - Use in flammable gas, vapour, mist and dust 165

166 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Ms. Missiroli (CEN) would contact the CEN TC to get clear information on the timeframe to identify a solution. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) observed that it would be difficult to do so in very short time, as it would depend on the technical committee. The UNITED KINGDOM would support the work of the TC 150 in order to start immediately, to get a solution as soon as possible. GERMANY said that if the standard was defective and this would be notified with some indication in the list of harmonised standards. DENMARK supported the UK on their intention to submit a formal objection against the standard, in the specific points. Mr. Eardley (Commission) remarked that the UK could introduce the formal objection and in the meantime of the procedure, the work of relevant technical committees could take place, and the formal objection would be withdrawn when reaching a satisfactory solution, in two or three months time. About the German proposal, it would be necessary a Commission opinion to put a note in the list of standards, and it would take a long time. The Chairperson summarized the discussion recognising the position of the UNITED KINGDOM about the standard, supported by other Member States, and confirmed a strong call to the relevant technical committee in order to urgency revise the standard and take a decision on the point discussed in the shortest delay. Without a clear signal in that way, the UK would lodge a formal objection and then the Commission would start the procedure to withdraw the presumption of conformity of the standard. Concerns from Norway on draft standard on Safety Devices Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/11 NORWAY introduced the paper, on the pre-standard for safety devices 17, very much needed with regard to conformity assessment procedures in the directive and wide implications. According to the industry thoughts, the standard would not cover adequately simple type safety devices, more common and causing more problems in practical application than complex devices. The standard would be submitted to vote on January Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) also expressed some general concerns about the way the draft standard addressed certain issues, control systems and protection for some components. At least one additional round of comments should be done: further work was needed on the text. Mr. Eickhoff (ExNBG), as member of the Working Group dealing with the standard, said that there were some misunderstanding, explained not clearly enough. Norwegian initiative could be very useful to identify key problems, for example on complementary assistance to be provided: work in the committee should continue, in order to cooperate and to find solutions. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) appreciated contributions at the meeting but he underlined that the standard had not been discussed within the national inquiries yet, and neither the assessment had been finalised, so the standard would need further inputs and work to be done. 17 pren Safety devices required for the safe functioning of equipment with respect to explosion risks 166

167 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Possible mandate on Pumps of Natural Gas filling stations - Update of pren Doc. ATEX/06/1/12 Ms. Missiroli (CEN) reported that the relevant TC 326 had seen the latest draft of the standard, taking into consideration ATEX provisions. Further discussions would be held in the plenary meeting of the TC, on 14 December 2006, in order to reach final results. Information on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE Doc. ATEX/06/1/11 GERMANY presented their proposal, with some general remarks on discussions in Germany, the objectives and the contents, at the international level of standardisation, technical requirements and conformity procedures. The IEC approach could be considered very close to the European New Approach, and the UNECE was taking up similar initiative in other fields, as earth-moving machines, in telecomm, etc., so it could be used also for ATEX products. The proposal would contribute to remove barriers to worldwide trade in this global relevant sector. With regards to the existing legal framework in the EU, it would be unaffected by this project, being an attempt to reach an agreement between all interested parties, including the Commission, in the WTO common denominator of IECEx model, international standardisation and free trade. AUSTRIA asked on the role and objectives of UNECE, also in respect of China, and recalled other instruments for international harmonisation, such as the Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs). Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) clarified that China was not represented in UNECE and that the IECEx scheme covered a large number of countries worldwide, also in Europe, beyond the EU. MRAs dealt only with specific certification procedures, when the proposal concerns international standards. DENMARK underlined some differences between the IECEx scheme and the European ATEX regulation, with regards to products certificated by a third part. GERMANY replied that the objective of the proposal was not to extend certification process to all ATEX products, but to remove possible barriers to trade worldwide, such as different legal provisions and different conformity requirements. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) expressed some general comments on the issue. Facilitation of global trade was a shared objective, reducing unnecessary barriers, but always ensuring high level of health and safety, on the basis of the European model. The Commission fully supported the IECEx voluntary scheme, being operatively compatible with the EU legal framework within the ATEX Directive. Further internal discussions and investigations should be carried out on the German proposal, in order to reach a formal position in the Commission, but some doubt could be raised about the legal binding status to be attributed to a voluntary scheme, going beyond its current situation in the signatory countries. Consequences with regard to national implementation measures and to the founding principles of the New Approach should be analysed: essential health and safety requirements, not-mandatory harmonised standards providing presumption of conformity, etc. International standards were as such not immediately relevant for the compliance with the essential requirements of the ATEX directive, unless they had been translated into harmonised standards adopted by the European Standardisation Organisations. Another issue was related to Mutual Recognition Agreements and the need to build the necessary mutual trust in sectors where a highlevel of safety was required and mandatory intervention of a third-part certification body was 18 pren NGV filling stations 167

168 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 needed. Especially in the ATEX field it could be quite difficult and could take long time. All these points should be taken in due consideration discussing the issue as proposed. Mr. Eardley (Commission) observed that the IECEx scheme was another question with regard to the current legal framework. It would be quite early to take a position on the issue, need to be further investigated and clarified, also with more information from GERMANY and contributions by the other Member States. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) envisaged a model where the IECEx certificates could have the same legal status as the national EN certificates in the same field: as a parallel operation of the two schemes, and the ATEX directive and procedures should not change. About competencies of bodies, it could be world-wide recognised also in the IECEx scheme at the same level of the ATEX scheme. DENMARK expressed some concerns on the IECEx scheme in parallel with the ATEX directive. It could go out of control of national authorities and it could cause problems in market surveillance activities. Ms. Spiliopoulou-Kaparia (Commission) confirmed the interest of the Commission on global harmonisation issues and the appreciation for the German proposal, referring also to other sectors as Automotive and Emissions. But, taking into consideration the implications related to New Approach directives, a number of aspects should be considered and carefully studied in order to reach a clear position. For that, more information was required. The Chairperson concluded that the issue would be followed-up at the next meeting, asking for further contributions and comments from GERMANY and the other Member States. 5. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO DENMARK (Chairperson of ATEX ADCO) provided an oral report on the last ADCO meeting held in Brussels on 29 th November Several important items had been discussed and a number of action points had been decided: among them, the ongoing work for a Guide for market surveillance and inspection procedures; evaluation systems for non-compliant products; list of examples of grey-zone products (interfaces with other directives); information exchange for market surveillance authorities; and certificates and responsibilities when repairing ATEX products, in different possible cases. Next ADCO meeting would be held in the end of June 2007, in Poland, DENMARK keeping the Chair. See also the Draft Minutes of the meeting in ATEX ADCO CIRCA Group Co-operation between Notified Bodies The Chairperson said that the lists of Clarification Sheets on EUROPA and on CIRCA had been updated, with regard to the procedures to be used to note the ExNBG sheets by the Working Group d&sb=title 168

169 XVI. 30 NOVEMBER 2006 Modification of ExNB/00/28/CS as proposal for the Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/06/2/12 Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) introduced the paper. Some questions needed to be clarified, on consideration of safety technology requirements for the equipment available in the language of the user and properly included in certificates. Translations should be provided by manufacturers, going beyond the responsibility of Notified Bodies. AUSTRIA observed some discrepancies to be solved in the proposal, and some kind of duplication, with regard to languages for CE marking and instructions on safe use of equipment. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) clarified that there were different kind of markings, to be made readable for any user, and the role of Notified Bodies was to look at those markings, but not to carry out translations: it should be the exclusive responsibility of manufacturers. Mr. Eardley (Commission) said that the question of languages and translations of markings was not defined in the directive, while there were provisions in this sense for instructions for safe use. The manufacturer should tell the Notified Body where the equipment was intended to be used, and provide the relevant translation for instructions. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) remarked the emphasis on translation of instructions also at international level. DENMARK supported the paper presented by ExNBG. The Chairperson noted that the Working Group considered acceptable the document, to be integrated to the Guidelines accordingly. 7. Any other business Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) presented the question on information to be provided by manufacturers, as instructions, on paper or electronic (CD-ROM, DVD, website) form. He referred to the clear answer reached in the Machinery sector: important information as instructions should be provided on paper form. The Chairperson confirmed that also for ATEX, the same clear answer should be given: instructions should be provided on paper form, as electronic supports could not offer the same level of availability as on paper. 8. Next meeting dates The next provisional meeting dates were set for the end of June 2007 and the end of November 2007, both in Brussels. To be confirmed as soon as possible. 169

170 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 10 July 2007 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Ms. Maria SPILIOPOULOU-KAPARIA, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Mr. Fabrizio SACCHETTI, Ms. Catherine KOECKX (ENTR/I4) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the European Commission participants, Mr. Eardley as former responsible of the ATEX Directive, and Mr. Merz as deputy to the ATEX Directive. He clarified that this Experts Working Group meeting would be followed by a formal Standing Committee meeting, given the nature of the agenda and the items to be discussed and submitted to approbation. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/07/1/01 rev. 1 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda, drawing the attention to some points to be discussed with the legal support by Mr. Sacchetti (Commission): items 3.4, 4.8, 8.1. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 30 November 2006 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/02 The minutes of the meeting held on 30 th November 2006 were approved without amendment. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Gas detectors with measuring devices (including content of ExNB/02/112/CS) Doc. ATEX/06/1/05 rev. 1

171 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 The Chairperson noted the absence of the ExNBG Chairman, as announced by Mr. Jockers by e- mail. GERMANY introduced a very last version of the document on Gas detection apparatus, dated and shortening the previous one (Doc. ATEX/06/1/05 rev. 1, ) in order to better explain the issue. DENMARK suggested modifying this document in order to avoid any misinterpretation, by adding a sentence: only equipment with their own ignition source of ignition are covered by the ATEX directive. Ms. Spiliopoulou-Kaparia (Commission) proposed to accept the Danish suggestion and to amend the German document accordingly. It would be submitted to a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA, in order to receive any possible comment and to approve it before the next WG meeting. This was agreed. Action I COMM to modify DE new document ( ) according to DA comments specifying that only equipment with their own source of ignition are covered by the ATEX directive and to submit it to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA. Revision of Table 1 of the ATEX Guidelines: conformity assessment for assemblies (related to draft Consideration Paper on Flameproof enclosures, based on ExNB/00/035/CS) Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/03, ATEX_WG/07/1/03 The Chairperson introduced the revised Table 1 of the ATEX Guidelines: a footnote had been added, to clarify the point on written attestation of conformity for components. FRANCE proposed to replace should with shall in the last sentence of the footnote. GERMANY remarked that not in all cases Notified Bodies should act (not in Category III for example), so they suggested to add the expression when required at the end of the footnote. The Chairperson noted the agreement of those present on the revised table with the inclusion of the proposals by FRANCE and GERMANY. Action II COMM to include the revised Table 1 in the ATEX Guidelines, as approved with the suggestions by FR in the footnote, shall and not should and by DE add when required at the end. Interface to the ATEX workplace user Directive Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/04 rev. 1, ATEX_WG/07/1/04 The Chairperson introduced the new version of the draft Consideration Paper, revised accordingly to the result of the last WG meeting, as shown in track changes. The revised paper had been submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period, and two comments had been received: from the UK see Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/04 and another one from EUTurbines. The UNITED KINGDOM presented their comments. They considered that the paper did not clarify the situation, in particular with regard to the concept of substantially modified products : 171

172 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 ATEX Guidelines, at 7.5, covered the question, so a further document on the same issue could lead to more confusion. SPAIN agreed on the UK comments. About this kind of modifications and their consideration at national level or not, a horizontal point of view should be taken, in order to avoid different actions in different directives. Ms. Spiliopoulou-Kaparia (Commission) noted the disagreement on some contents of the proposed paper and asked those present on the real need of such a document on the issue. DENMARK thought that the question should be clarified, but at the same time they agreed with the UK on their remarks. In their opinion, the proposed paper as such could be withdrawn; the real need was to have some concrete examples of essential modifications in the light of directive 94/9/EC. Further discussion on the issue should be carried out. The NETHERLANDS and GERMANY agreed with the UK and DENMARK. A list of examples would be useful, but it would be very difficult to draft. The UNITED KINGDOM referred to some practical situations under the Pressured Equipment Directive (PED) and the relevant guidelines and national legislation. Even a list could create more confusion; in general terms, they considered that decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis. The Chairperson noted the general consensus of those present to withdraw the draft Consideration Paper and to close the discussion for the moment. Provision of test results with EC-Type Examination Certificates Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/05 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, asking an opinion on the legal obligation or not, for Notified Bodies, to supply the manufacturer with the test reports used to support the decision to issue an EC-Type Certificate. After presenting different background consideration and some current practices in the UK, they considered that the Directive (Annex III) was not enough clear on the question, and that this situation could lead to negative effects on manufacturers, consumers and even competitiveness distortions between Notified Bodies in different countries. SPAIN thought that the Directive was quite clear on obligations for manufacturers and Notified Bodies related to documents and technical file. DENMARK also considered that the Directive was clear on the issue, and added that the test reports to be provided by the Notified Body to the manufacturers would be established in the relevant contract. GERMANY said that this kind of debate had been carried out also in Germany, but by a practical point of view, in general manufacturers had the right to receive all the relevant documents from Notified Bodies concerning the issue of a certificate. AUSTRIA considered that all relevant reports should be provided, according to the contract agreed by manufacturer and Notified Body. The UNITED KINGDOM noted the positions expressed and reaffirmed the need to have a clear answer, also from the legal services of the Commission. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) remarked that the Directive did not clearly establish to whom these documents belong. Notified Bodies should include specific clauses on certificates and documentation to own certificates, also to withdraw them when necessary. But by 172

173 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 a legal point of view, he said that the question was not very clear, and it could be regarded as a private matter between manufacturers and Notified Bodies. ITALY also said that Notified Bodies should provide all the relevant documentation and test reports related to issuing an EC-Type Certificate, also in order to avoid any possible protectionism by a Notified Body when a manufacturer would ask the services of another body in the future. FRANCE observed that not in all cases a test report was needed, according to the technical file. The NETHERLANDS said that in some cases, Notified Bodies received more money to provide all the documentation, including test reports, when a manufacturer could need them when they put their products outside Europe. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) underlined that the Directive established obligations for manufacturers with regard to technical documentation, but the question of test reports to be included there or not, it could depend on the agreement with the Notified Body, in different cases when the manufacturer had to prepare the technical file, or when the manufacturer asked for further reports from the Notified Body to confirm the adequacy of the technical file. SPAIN replied that Notified Bodies should not participate in preparation of the technical file, as it was an exclusive responsibility of the manufacturer, which really knew its product. A Notified Body could only carry out an assessment and inspection work, not being involved in the previous evaluation. The Chairperson confirmed the remark from SPAIN, to avoid any unfair situation, and asked not to confuse the basic terms of the question, related to tests carried out by Notified Bodies under the relevant harmonised standards, in the conformity assessment process. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) said that, according to references in Annex III to the Directive related to responsibilities for manufacturers and Notified Bodies, there was no clear obligation to provide the results of additional tests carried out by the Notified Body. The obligation related to technical file was for manufacturers in respect of market surveillance authorities. Maybe the question could be better specified in a future revision of the ATEX Directive, and in the meantime something could be added to the Guidelines. In general, it could be considered surprising the situation when a manufacturer did not include a specific clause in the contract with a Notified Body, to ensure provision of test reports or any other relevant documents related to EC-Type Examination Certificates. It appeared to be a question of contractual relationship: a marginal or a really widespread problem? Did it worth to include something specific in the ATEX Guidelines, or could it be considered only a private matter between manufacturers and Notified Bodies? The Chairperson concluded noting the opinions of those present and proposed to further investigate the issue in order to have a clear picture of its real importance, not only for the ATEX Directive but as a horizontal issue also for the other New Approach directives. In this sense, other relevant Commission services would be consulted; contributions from Member States were also needed. Action III COMM to internally investigate the question, as a horizontal issue, with other Commission services in charge of NA directives, in order to discuss it at the next ATEX WG meeting. 173

174 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 ALL to further investigate the question in their countries and to provide reports and contributions at the next ATEX WG meeting. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson said that the latest publication had taken place on 15 th December 2006 (see EUROPA website) 20, still in 20 official languages; next publication, in 22 official languages, would take place when both CEN and CENELEC would provide updated lists. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/08 Mr. Radandt (CEN TC 305) presented the written report on the activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally presented the report on the activities of the CENELEC Technical Committee 31. Relevant progress had been made especially in international framework with the IEC Committee, in order to internationalise the standardisation work carried out in Europe. He also remarked some problems with standards to be withdrawn as well as with the drafting of the new list of references of standards to be harmonised. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, including some additional and complementary remarks to previous reports see Annex I. Revision of Harmonised Standards - Proposed re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.3 Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/13, ATEX_WG/07/1/06 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/06, proposing changes on Section 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines with regard to changes in the state of the art and responsibilities of manufacturers and Notified Bodies. GERMANY considered very interesting the UK paper, even if it included quite different points of view on responsibilities of stakeholders with respect to present point They presented a new document, drafted on 2 July 2007 with ZVEI: Position Paper: Validity of EC Type-Examination Certificates/ EC Declarations of Conformity under the EC Directive 94/9/EC (ATEX), based on practical information and current practices in Germany. The NETHERLANDS said that the UK paper raised very interesting questions also for the Netherlands. The German document also offered interesting answers. DENMARK supported the last German contribution, which should be taken into consideration in the COMM document; but on the other hand they did not agree with the UK paper, where it eliminated the responsibility of Notified Bodies: they were obliged to inform their customers about changes in technology, in order to take actions. They disagreed also on the mechanism for alerting 20 ATEX Standardization: 174

175 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 the stakeholders to be used by regulatory and enforcement authorities, as responsibility for fulfilling the requirements of the Directive was for manufacturers. Ms. Spiliopoulou-Kaparia (Commission) recalled the roles of all stakeholders and in particular for market surveillance authorities, manufacturers and Notified Bodies, with a change in the state of the art, in the framework of distribution of responsibilities between all interested partied in the New Approach. The issue should be reconsidered taking on board all the last proposals and comments, with a balanced approach and no shift of responsibilities, as well as with some inspiration from other directives. COMM proposed to draft a consensual proposal, to be submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period for comments. This was agreed. Action IV COMM to draft a consensual proposal on the basis of DE and UK papers (ATEX_WG/06/2/13, ATEX_WG/07/1/06, 02 July 2007), and to submit it to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA. Update on remarks on EN 1755: (Safety of industrial trucks) from the UK Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/09, ATEX_WG/06/2/10 The UNITED KINGDOM said that CEN TC 150 had started the revision of the standard, taking into account the aspects to be improved, according to their remarks. Positive signals had been received so far, so the UK would wait for results, putting their objections on hold. Update on possible mandate on Pumps of Natural Gas filling stations - update of pren Ms. Missiroli (CEN) reported that CEN TC 326 had produced a new draft of the standard, including relevant requirements of the ATEX Directive, to be submitted to formal vote. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY introduced a presentation on their proposal on ATEX submitted to UNECE WP.6 available also on the UNECE website 23. Working papers for the next meeting, on 5-7 November 2007 in Geneva, would be available on the same website. Dialogue and consultation with all the relevant parties involved (EU, USA, China etc.) would take place on a specific session, in order to find out any agreement or disagreement points. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) said that COMM would be represented at the meeting in Geneva. Further details would be confirmed in due moment. Action V COMM and DE to report on the next UNECE WP6 meeting in Geneva, 5-7 Nov EN 1755:2000 Safety of industrial trucks - Operation in potentially explosive atmospheres - Use in flammable gas, vapour, mist and dust 22 pren NGV filling stations 23 Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6): 175

176 XVII. 10 JULY Report on the first ATEX safeguard clause The Chairperson announced that the first ATEX safeguard clause (Barrier Gland) had been lodged by SWEDEN, received by on 31 January 2007 and formally via fax on 26 March. Relevant documents and details were available on the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 24. The procedure was under way, in order to have a Commission opinion before the end of the year SWEDEN confirmed the information and would wait for the results of the procedure. 6. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO DENMARK (Chairperson of ATEX ADCO) provided an oral report on the last ADCO meeting held in Katowice (Poland) on June 2007; a written report would be provided soon (see Annex II). Among the items discussed, effective mechanism for mutual cooperation between Member States, as well as practical experiences of market surveillance activities, took special importance there. The next ADCO meeting would be held in Brussels, probably on 21 st November 2007, the day before the Working Group meeting. DANMARK would close the period as Chair; the NETHERLANDS announced their availability to be the Chair for the next meetings in See also the relevant folder in the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 25. Ms. Spiliopoulou-Kaparia (Commission) mentioned last developments on the on-going process of revision of the New Approach, with the draft Regulation (on market surveillance issues), and the draft Decision. A specific point on the revision of New Approach would be included on the Agenda of the next WG meeting, in order to provide more concrete update on the question. Action VI DK (ADCO Chair) to provide a written report, to be attached to the minutes. Action VII COMM to include a point on the state-of-play of the ongoing revision of the New Approach on the Agenda of the next ATEX WG meeting. 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Draft Consideration Paper on ExNBG Clarification Sheets: Status and use Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/07 The Chairperson introduced the paper on status and use of ExNBG Clarification Sheets, as presented and discussed at the ADCO meeting held on November Those papers were 24 Article 7 notifications (Application of the safeguard clause) - Sweden: sb=title 176

177 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 documents issued by Notified Bodies for Notified Bodies and had to be considered as useful recommendations for all stakeholders under the ATEX Directive: so, they could be noted by the Standing Committee and published on the EUROPA website 26. In any case, ExNBG Clarification Sheets could not provide any presumption of conformity with the requirements of the Directive. The UNITED KINGDOM expressed three comments on the content of the paper: on point 1), they did not fully agree on considering ExNBG as independent, as Notified Bodies, too, were part of the New Approach framework; on point 2), it was not exact to mention an obligation for Notified Bodies to use Clarification Sheets; on point 6), the noting process should be clarified with regard to discharge of responsibility for the contents of sheets. The Chairperson asked the UNITED KINGDOM to provide their comments in written form, in order to be taken into consideration in a revised version of the paper. The NETHERLANDS also proposed, on point 3), to replace should not with shall not. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) confirmed that ExNBG Clarification Sheets had to be used by Notified Bodies, but not providing presumption of conformity, so they could not be listed in manufacturer s declarations. SPAIN also confirmed that only harmonised standards could provide presumption of conformity. The Chairperson agreed on suggestions provided and announces that a revised paper would be submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA, to be approved. Action VIII COMM to revise the paper according to comments provided by UK and NL, and to submit it to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA. 8. Any other business Application of ATEX Guidelines 3.3 The Chairperson introduced a question raised by the Italian industry association, Confindustria, with regard to possible forced interpretation of point 3.3 of the ATEX Guidelines, related to definition of manufacturer and consequent differences in application of conformity assessment procedures by a Notified Body. The question was mentioned at the WG meeting as a first introduction and initial discussion; a paper would be submitted at the next meeting, including further information from the involved parties ITALY and ORGALIME was requested, as well as any useful contribution from Member States and other stakeholders, in order to get a clear picture of the situation and to take appropriate action. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) added that the question was related to Annex VII to the directive Product Quality Assurance and the general definition of manufacturer and their outsourced premises in countries outside the EU. In case, an Italian manufacturer, represented by Confindustria, claimed against possible unfair practices of a Notified Body. 26 ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Standing Committee: 177

178 XVII. 10 JULY 2007 FRANCE mentioned the standard EN 13980: as the base for the quality assessment, including visits and inspections also in subcontractors premises. ITALY clarified some aspects of the question and underlined that in this case, the whole production process was subcontracted to a company outside the EU. Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) observed that Notified Bodies had different practices in some cases, causing possible differences in treatment for example in the assessment of quality systems. SPAIN said that conditions and responsibilities were the same for the manufacturers and subcontractors, and premises should be audited, also outside the EU. AUSTRIA said that also in PPE Directive 89/686/EEC there were similar questions related to quality assessment. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) reaffirmed that COMM needed feedback from interested parties for the next WG meeting (national references, questions, etc.), as the question could be regarded also as a horizontal issue for other directives with quality modules. Action IX COMM to table the issue on the Agenda of the next ATEX WG meeting, to collect contributions from ORGALIME, IT and ALL, and to horizontally investigate the question. ORGALIME and IT to investigate the question with the interested parties (manufacturers, notified body), to provide opinions and contributions at the next ATEX WG meeting. ALL to prepare opinions and contributions for the next ATEX WG meeting. Activities of HSE with regard to pressurised rooms/modules for use in off-shore facilities The UNITED KINGDOM orally reported on the issue, as first information to the members of the Working Group. A written document would be presented at the next meeting, in order to receive opinions on the adequateness of the UK conclusions. Action X UK to draft a paper on the issue, to be presented at the next ATEX WG meeting. 9. Next meeting date The next provisional meeting date was set for the 22 nd of November 2007, in Brussels. The day before, on the 21 st of November, the ADCO meeting would be held. To be confirmed as soon as possible. 27 EN 13980:2002 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Application of quality systems 178

179 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 22 November 2007 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Ms. Maria SPILIOPOULOU-KAPARIA, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Raffaela FRACONFINI (ENTR/I4), Mr. Fabrizio SACCHETTI (ENTR/I2), Ms. Birgit WEIDEL (ENTR/C1) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/07/2/01 rev. 1 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda, drawing the attention to some points to be discussed with the support of other colleagues for COMM: Mr. Sacchetti for item 4.7 (Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE) and Ms. Weidel for item 8 (Revision of the New Approach: state of play). The UNITED KINGDOM pointed out that point 3.2 should be indicated as Application of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to transportable, pressurised cabins intended for use in hazardous areas, as the referred doc. ATEX_WG/07/02/04. With the correction suggested by the UK, the draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 10 July 2007 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/02 The minutes of the meeting held on 10 July 2007 were approved without amendment. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions

180 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 Gas detectors with measuring devices (including content of ExNB/02/112/CS) Docs. ATEX_WG/06/1/05 rev. 2, ATEX_WG/07/1/09 Comments by the UK Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/11 The Chairperson recalled last discussions on the issue, in the Agenda of the ATEX WG since long time. An agreement had been reached at the last WG meeting, to draft a new version (rev. 2) of doc. ATEX_WG/06/1/05, and to submit the paper to a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA. A comment had been received from the UNITED KINGDOM. The UNITED KINGDOM presented their comment, based on consultations with UK stakeholders. According to their different positions on the matter, they proposed a compromise on a case-bycase basis with regard to the scope and interpretation of Art. 1.2 of the ATEX Directive and the inclusion of gas detection apparatus with different functions. GERMANY referred to previous bilateral discussions with the UK and agreed on different possible interpretations of Art. 1.2 for these devices. So, in the paper under discussion, they proposed to remove the second sentence in point 2 For reason of coherence other type of ATEX equipment, and to more clearly differentiate examples 1 and 2 (covered by Art. 1.2) from 3 and 4 (outside the scope, as they did not trigger a de-energisation). Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) also recalled previous discussions and recognised the complexity of the matter, having different cases to be considered as covered by the Directive or not, according to intended use stated by the manufacturer. He thought that clear answers were required, and not a "minimum denominator" compromise. The UNITED KINGDOM agreed on the need of not having a minimum, but clear and assured answers on the matter, for all the interested parties. They proposed to carry out trilateral discussions between the UK, GERMANY and ExNBG in order to reach a satisfactory agreement, in a paper to be circulated among all the Committee members. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that the position of German stakeholders was shared also by other Member States, and referred to Annex II to the Directive, including the essential requirements also for this kind of devices and the risks, in particular points and He supported the UK proposal for trilateral discussion to reach an agreement. The UNITED KINGDOM asked for more comments from all the other interested parties, but agreed with COMM on the fact that the question had been tabled in the Agenda since long time: a consensus should be reached. The Chairperson noted the agreement of those present to ask the UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY and ExNBG to discuss trilaterally the matter and to propose a new Draft Consideration Paper which would be submitted to a 4-weeks period circulation for all the Committee members on CIRCA. Action I UK, DE and ExNBG to discuss trilaterally on the last comments provided to the last version of the document drafted by COMM, to reach a satisfactory agreement on the issue. The resulting Draft Consideration Paper, to be submitted to a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA. Provision of test results with EC-Type Examination Certificates Docs. ATEX_WG/07/1/05, ATEX_WG/07/2/03 180

181 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 The Chairperson introduced doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/03, as Comments for discussion : as result of internal consultations, the Commission services had concluded that test reports had to be provided to the manufacturer, taking into consideration the current legal framework and practices for different directives under the New Approach. The UNITED KINGDOM asked whether this conclusion would be included in the ATEX Guidelines. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) referred to the correct application of the relevant procedures and standards dealing with the issue. The final report with the result of a conformity assessment procedure, in order to issue a certificate, was property of the manufacturer, and test results were necessary to support and to make intelligible the report. In Germany there were no doubt on the issue, it was a current practice. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the issue and proposed to the UNITED KINGDOM to co-operate in order to draft a paragraph with the UNITED KINGDOM, to be included in the ATEX Guidelines after a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA. Action II COMM and UK to co-operate to draft a paragraph on the issue, to be inserted in the ATEX Guidelines after a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA. Application of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to transportable, pressurised cabins intended for use in hazardous areas Doc. ATEX_WG/07/04 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper. According to that, all the devices in this kind of cabins should be considered as safety devices, according to the directive. The module itself should be subject to conformity assessment, carried out by a Notified Body, considering it to be in scope of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) remarked that standards mentioned in the paper were harmonised standards, and suggested to change the expression safety device on page 2, second paragraph, to protection device, using the harmonised standard terminology. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the paper submitted by the UNITED KINGDOM, with the correction suggested by Mr. Dill. It would be formally approved as Consideration Paper at the next Standing Committee meeting. Action III COMM to submit the UK paper, with the correction suggested by Mr. Dill, to formal approbation as Consideration Paper at the next SC meeting. Application of ATEX Guidelines 3.3 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/14 The Chairperson introduced doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/14 as some comments for discussion, with regard to a case of possible unequal treatment between manufacturers who subcontracted or not. The Commission services had to re-affirm that the correct application of the Product Quality Assurance Module (Annex VII to the directive) was subcontracting-neutral, so all manufacturers under this Module should be submitted to the same conformity assessment procedure and should provide the same information. 181

182 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 Mr. Maggioni (Orgalime) and Mr. Solzi (ANIA) exposed a proposal from ANIA (Italian sectorial association, member of Confindustria) to amend the ATEX Guidelines, adding a general definition as follows: Manufacturer s plant premises are intended as the locations where equipment and protective systems destined for use in potentially explosive atmospheres are manufactured. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) said that Annexes VII to the Directive Module: Product Quality Assurance was quite clear, even if it could be possible that different Notified Bodies in different countries could be proceed in different ways. The Chairperson proposed to re-draft point 3.3 Manufacturer of the ATEX Guidelines, in order to further clarify the issue and to prevent any possible misleading interpretation of the definition of manufacturer in conformity assessment procedures, in particular with regard to Module VII Product Quality Assurance, taking into consideration the comments from the Commission services, the contributions from Member States, Industry and Notified Bodies, as well as the relevant contents of the standard EN 13980: , as mentioned at the last WG meeting. Furthermore, he invited the Group of Notified Bodies to discuss the issue on their next ExNBG meeting (27-28 November 2007), in order to make a call for harmonised and coherent application of the conformity assessment procedures for all the members and countries. This was agreed. Action IV COMM to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 3.3 to further clarify the issue and to prevent any misleading interpretation of the definition of manufacturer in conformity assessment procedures (in particular the Product Quality Assurance ), taking into consideration also the standard EN ExNBG to table the issue at the next ExNBG meeting, to make a call for harmonised application of the conformity assessment procedures. Borderline list for ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/05 SWEDEN introduced a proposal for a borderline list for ATEX products, as a guidance document in a number of grey zone cases, for equipment; protective systems; safety, controlling or regulating devices; and other products, placing them in or out of the scope of Directive 94/9/EC, and providing graphic examples and comments. GERMANY reported on discussions on the list with German experts. They expressed some remarks on Vent panels (there was no such (Non El.) specification), on PT 100 sensor (they did not agree on the comment Yes or no based on a risk assessment if not used in intrinsic safe system, and, finally, they considered that Note 2 was not very clear. The UNITED KINGDOM agreed on the purpose of this list, but they remarked potential misuse of the list, when approved by the Standing Committee as a guidance document. Such a list should be used always linked to the Directive, the only legal reference for ATEX products. The UK had some specific comments on the list: they would send them in written form to SWEDEN. The Chairperson thanked SWEDEN and other Member States to provide further comments and improvements to the list, to be regarded as a live document. A revised version would be submitted at the next WG meeting. 28 EN 13980:2002 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Application of quality systems 182

183 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 Action V SE to take on board the comments from DE, UK and others, to release an updated version of the list at the next WG meeting. Notified Bodies of Category 3 EC-Type Examination Certificates ATEX Guidelines 10.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/06 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, referred to documents issued by Notified Bodies according to ATEX Guidelines The inclusion of Category 3 products on EC-Type Examination Certificates could lead to a number of serious problems, as distortions in the regulatory framework and the European market and impact on health and safety of products: for that, the UK ask the Commission services, Member States and Notified Bodies to take action in order to ensure the respect of provisions of the ATEX Directive and ATEX Guidelines on the matter. GERMANY thought that the issue should be submitted for consideration to the Group of Notified Bodies, in order to recall the legal framework related to EC-Type Examination Certificates. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) agreed and announced that the issue would be tabled in the agenda of the next ExNBG meeting, on November The Commission would report on that. Action VI ExNBG to table the issue at the next ExNBG meeting, to be discussed by the members. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson recalled that the last publication had taken place on 15 th December 2006 (see EUROPA website) 29, still in 20 official languages; a new publication, in 22 official languages, would take place when also CENELEC would provide new lists, to be merged with the lists from CEN, as already provided. If not possible, a list of new references from CEN would be published within the end of the year Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/09 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented the report on activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305. AUSTRIA asked about the current situation on IEC Ex standards with regard to CEN and ISO, and the European standards, in particular annexes ZA. Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) replied that CEN and ISO had an agreement for IEC Ex standards, basically in the electrical field. There was also a subcommittee for the mechanical field, in view to get more coherence with electrical and no-electrical fields. TC 305 dealt with European standards but they also cooperated with IEC taking into due consideration the European framework and the related technical aspects. 29 ATEX Standardization: 183

184 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally reported on activities of the CENELEC Technical Committee 31. He mentioned the cooperation and common work with different CEN and CENELEC committees, also at ISO and IEC level, including clarification of different issues, comments etc., especially in order to avoid any overlap in the international framework. With regard to the publication of references of standards, there was some delay but new lists would be provided soon. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/07 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, covering the period July-October 2007, dealing with activities related to CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31. He highlighted some key issues, in particular with regard to electrical and non-electrical standards, as well as other business, as very good example of cooperation between the relevant technical committees. The UNITED KINGDOM asked for information on the exact status of the standard EN 1755: , whether relevant progress had been made or not. AUSTRIA asked for more information on EN on electrical apparatus. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) replied that, for the revision of EN 1755 (year 2000 version was already on the list of harmonised standards), things were developing on the relevant working group; further information would be provided with an explicative note. On EN , the standard had been produced but not harmonised yet. Revision of Harmonised Standards - Proposed re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.3 Docs. ATEX_WG/06/2/13, ATEX_WG/07/1/06, ATEX_WG/07/1/10, ATEX_WG/07/2/08 Comments by the UK - Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/12 The Chairperson introduced doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/08, as a consensual proposal to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.3, submitted to 4-weeks circulation on CIRCA: a comment had been produced by the UNITED KINGDOM, as in doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/12. The Commission paper tried to clarify the concept and application of substantive development of the state of the art in particular, with regard to new harmonised standards and the related responsibilities of manufacturers and Notified Bodies. The UNITED KINGDOM explained their comment: they re-affirmed some concerns on the role of Notified Bodies, and introduced an interim proposal, in view to further improve the point in the future. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the Commission proposal with changes suggested by the UNITED KINGDOM. After the formal approbation by the Standing Committee at the next meeting, the new 10.3 as re-drafted would be included in the ATEX Guidelines. Action VII 30 EN 1755:2000 Safety of industrial trucks - Operation in potentially explosive atmospheres - Use in flammable gas, vapour, mist and dust 31 EN :2006 Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres - Part 0: General requirements (IEC :2004 (Modified)) 184

185 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 COMM to include in the ATEX Guidelines the new 10.3 as re-drafted in the consensual proposal by COMM with the interim proposals by UK, after the formal approbation at the next SC meeting. Substantial modifications due to change from standards series EN to series EN Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/10 FRANCE introduced the paper with a proposal from INERIS and LCIE on different cases in the change from standards series EN to series EN 60079, and a list of substantial modifications, with regard to equipment certified according to the previous harmonised standards. They asked the opinion of the Commission services and the other Committee Members. The UNITED KINGDOM remarked the need to avoid any possible incoherencies of this paper with regard to 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines. GERMANY agreed with the UNITED KINGDOM, as ATEX Guidelines 10.3 specified how substantial changes should be specified. They thought that this was a very technical issue and it should not be discussed by the Committee, but by CENELEC with the other interested parties and stakeholders. GERMANY also had prepared a proposal, by consulting manufacturers and users. FRANCE clarified that their paper would not be alternative to the previous ones, but a tool to clarify some aspects of their practical implementation. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) agreed on the role to be played by CENELEC, but in the meantime, Notified Bodies should apply a common approach and practices. French proposal, as well as 10.3, would be submitted to the next ExNBG meeting in order to discuss them and to clarify how to deal with the issue. The UNITED KINGDOM supported the objectives of the French document, and agreed on sending to ExNBG, but without any formal support by the Working Group on possible change of the state of the art from series EN to series EN Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) pointed out that the French paper addressed with two questions: how Notified Bodies should deal with practical cases, and a list of substantial modifications. Standardisation committees had specific responsibilities on that, according to changes of the state of the art, so CENELEC would prepare a list of standards concerned by this kind of changes. Mr. Jockers (ExNBG) agreed with Mr. Sinclair: there were two different questions. First of all, a common working method for Notified Bodies was needed, and the issues would be tabled at the next meeting, in order to produce a common position as Clarification Sheet. FRANCE said that most important problems came from practical application of harmonised standards to equipment already certified. A proposal like that was needed to make progress on the issue. The Chairperson summarised the discussion proposing that the French paper would be sent to the ExNBG, to be discussed at their next meeting in order to draft a specific Consideration Sheet; inviting the ESOs (CEN and CENELEC) to draft a list of harmonised standards with substantial modifications ; and making a call to all the Committee Members and interested parties to provide comments and contributions, in order to take a common position at the next WG meeting. 32 Series EN Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres 33 Series EN Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres 185

186 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 This was agreed. Action VIII ExNBG to table the issue at the next ExNBG meeting, to be discussed by the members. CEN and CENELEC to set a list of standards with substantial modifications. ALL to provide comments and contributions. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the specific session of the UNECE WP meeting in Geneva, held on 6 November 2007, with representatives of national market regulation authorities. Complete information, including working papers and minutes etc., was available as usual on the UNECE website 34. There were some remarkable presentations and positions, as from Australia (approving a New Approach system), China and Russia, as well as the IECEx scheme; the European Commission representative presented the European model. There was a general agreement on the need to go on with cooperation and development, in particular with regard to differences between IECEx and ATEX systems: the objective was not modifying the ATEX European framework, but looking for contribution from all the interested parties, in order to have a global overview on how different systems work, and to find common solutions. There were not so many differences between them, so it could be possible to work together within the UNECE framework, toward a possible application of the New Approach principles at international level. At the next UNECE meetings on 2008, a matrix for resolution of problems would be presented: a preparatory meeting would be held in May 2008 and the important one, in November Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) also reported on the WP.6 meeting in Geneva, to which he participated as Commission representative. He confirmed the accuracy and completeness of the German report, and the good intention of the Commission services to contribute to the work of the group, in particular with regard to comparison between IECEx scheme and ATEX, at what extent they could be used according to the European legal requirements. AUSTRIA recalled that the Commission was going to carry out a study on the issue and the different aspects related to the New Approach, the IECEx scheme etc., and the possibility to create a global system also for countries not covered by directives but taking into consideration the current globalization. Mr. Sacchetti (Commission) replied that the work had just started, with a mapping of the current situation and on voluntary approach standards. In-depth study would be carried out by UNECE and IEC, before to have further comparative studies between the IECEx scheme and ATEX, by collecting information to better understand each country s approach to the issue. COMM and Germany would be able to report on further progress at the next WG meeting. Basic documents under discussion would be available on the UNECE website and also on CIRCA for the ATEX Committee members. Action IX COMM and DE to follow up the issue, to report on new developments at the next WG meeting. 34 Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 186

187 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER Report on the first ATEX safeguard clause The Chairperson announced that the Commission opinion on the first ATEX safeguard clause (Barrier Gland) would recognise that actions taken by SWEDEN were justified. After some internal procedures, the Commission opinion would be formally issued as soon as possible. All the relevant documents would be available on the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 35. SWEDEN confirmed that they would provide all the relevant information to the Member States, but in any case the manufacturer had already withdrawn all the concerned products from the market. 6. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO DENMARK (Chairperson of ATEX ADCO) provided an oral report on the last ADCO meeting held in Brussels on 21 November 2007 (the day before this Working Group meeting); a short written report would be provided soon (see Annex II). For the year 2008, the NETHERLANDS confirmed their interest to chair the ADCO group. So, the next ADCO meeting would be held in the Netherlands, probably in June 2008 (to be agreed and confirmed also with COMM, with regard to the next Standing Committee and Working Group meetings). See also the relevant folder in the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 36. Action X DK (ADCO Chair) to provide a short written report, to be attached to the minutes. 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Draft Consideration Paper on ExNBG Clarification Sheets: Status and use Doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/07 rev. 1 Comments by the UK Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/13 The Chairperson introduced doc. ATEX_WG/07/1/07, as a draft Consideration Paper on ExNBG Clarification Sheets, submitted to 4-weeks circulation on CIRCA: a comment had been produced by the UNITED KINGDOM, as in doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/13. As already discussed at the previous WG meeting, the paper contained some points to clarify the status and use of those documents produced by the Notified Body Group. The UNITED KINGDOM explained their comment, to remark and to clarify some aspects related to the independence of ExNBG and the importance of its role in the Global Approach structure. 35 Article 7 notifications (Application of the safeguard clause) - Sweden: sb=title 187

188 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 They also proposed to include a reference to 6.6. of the Blue Guide 37 Coordination and cooperation for Notified Bodies. dealing with GERMANY supported the UK comments. They thought that the contents of ExNBG Clarification Sheets should be included into the standards. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that Clarification Sheets could be considered as clarification of test methods and not interpretation of standards. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the contributions by the UNITED KINGDOM and GERMANY. The revised draft Consideration Paper would be submitted to formal approbation at the next SC meeting. Action XI COMM to submit the Consideration Paper to formal approbation at the next SC meeting, as proposed by COMM with the suggestions by UK. 8. Revision of the New Approach: state of play The Chairperson introduced a short presentation on the state of play of review of the New Approach and the New Legislative Framework (NLF), updated on November 2007 (see Annex I). Ms. Weidel (Commission) presented more detailed information on the issue and the very last news, including the Competitiveness Council on November, explaining some points on the current work and positions at the European Parliament and the Council. AUSTRIA asked on some specific aspects for the ATEX Directive also with regard to the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) and competencies between DG ENTR and DG SANCO, taking into consideration differences between consumer products and products for professional use, and that CE mark and market surveillance were referred to health and safety conditions for all kind of users (domestic or professional). Ms. Weidel (Commission) confirmed that different Commission services as DG ENTR and DG SANCO worked together on these issues, in order to ensure the highest level of health and safety for all users, either domestic or professional. In any case, she underlined that CE mark was not a safety mark, but a conformity mark. The Chairperson confirmed that further and updated information would be provided at the next WG meeting. Action XII COMM to present an updated report on the state-of-play of the ongoing revision of the New Approach at the next WG meeting. 9. Any other business 37 Guide to the Implementation of Directives Based on New Approach and Global Approach 188

189 XVIII. 22 NOVEMBER 2007 No other business. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson announced that the next meetings of the Standing Committee and Working Group would be held on June 2008, approximately a week after the meeting of the ADCO group. COMM and the NETHERLANDS, as the new ADCO Chair, would keep in contact in order to set the dates as soon as possible, to be communicated via CIRCA to all the members. 189

190 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 25 June 2008 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Catherine KOECKX (ENTR/I4), Mr. Zacharias BILALIS (ENTR/C1) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. Fringe 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/08/1/01 rev. 1 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 22 November 2007 Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/02 The UNITED KINGDOM remarked that, at the item Gas detectors (page 2), they had not said that or this point should be removed : the issue should be discussed until a satisfactory consensus could be reached. With the UK remarks, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2007 were approved. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Gas detectors apparatus: Draft Consideration Paper (4-weeks circulation paper) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11 Comment by the UK - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-1 Comment by DE - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-2 Comment by Orgalime - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/11-3

191 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The Chairperson introduced the paper submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA and the three comments received from the UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY and ORGALIME. The UNITED KINGDOM proposed a re-formulation of the text, as it was not clear yet: there was confusion on the specific situation of those detectors. To reach a finally satisfactory solution, a panel of expert could be convened, or at least the German proposal should be taken into account, with a little change in chapter 3.10 of the ATEX Guidelines. Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) recalled considerations already submitted at previous meeting to present their comments. GERMANY supported their proposal for a new wording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4, by removing the word direct, without a specific Consideration Paper. Further discussions in order to improve the situation could be developed by experts later on; in the meantime, gas detectors should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) said that, at the last ExNBG meeting, no additional comments on the issue had been provided, more than the ones expressed by the previous Chairman, Mr. Jockers. The UNITED KINGDOM thought that the Guidelines should not be changed, as the consequences of such amendment would not be very clear. FRANCE supported the German proposal, by arguing that operators would not be sure on the use of gas detectors: they should be verified according to their specific situation. The Chairperson asked Member States to take a decision on the two proposals: from the UNITED KINGDOM, to deep investigate the question and not to change the ATEX Guidelines, or from GERMANY, to take apart the draft Consideration Paper and to amend the ATEX Guidelines The UNITED KINGDOM proposal was supported by AUSTRIA and the UNITED KINGDOM; all the other Member States supported the GERMAN proposal. The Chairperson noted the agreement of those present: the draft Consideration Paper would be taken apart and the wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10 would be changed, by removing direct form point 4, according to the German proposal. GERMANY, at the request of AUSTRIA, agreed on the need to better explain the concept of direct/indirect control with regard to those specific devices. They would submit written contribution/considerations on the issue at the next meeting. Action I COMM to take apart the draft Consideration Paper as such and to change the wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4, removing direct according to DE comment. DE to send written contribution/considerations on the issue of direct control mentioned in the draft Consideration Paper and removed from the new wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10, point 4. Provision of test results with EC-Type Examination Certificates: Proposal of text to be inserted in the ATEX Guidelines (4-weeks circulation paper) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03 Comment by the UK - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03-1 Comment by DE - Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/

192 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The Chairperson introduced the proposal of text for the ATEX Guidelines and recalled previous discussion on the issue. GERMANY had proposed to include into section 10.2: it was agreed. The UNITED KINGDOM proposed to include a specific wording on analysis for intrinsic safety, according to the comment they had provided. The NETHERLANDS thought that evaluation and test results should be considered in the text, but without entering in such specific details as the UNITED KINGDOM had proposed, as it would be difficult its practical application by Notified Bodies. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also thought that the idea of intrinsic safety in this point would lead to different treatment in evaluation processes. The UNITED KINGDOM clarified that in the paper would not be mentioned intrinsic safety as such, but only a mention to a separate document regarding the analysis undertaken. GERMANY pointed out that the contents of the proposal from the Commission and the one from the UNITED KINGDOM were different. Also with regard the use of the report is to accompany (UK proposal) or test results should accompany (COMM proposal): should was to be used because of the private nature agreement between the Notified Body and the manufacturer. The NETHERLANDS expressed their preference for the COMM proposal, with the correction suggested by GERMANY and adding evaluation to test results. DENMARK, ITALY and AUSTRIA also supported the COMM proposal as integrated by the NETHERLANDS, but replacing should with shall. FRANCE and the CZECH REPUBLIC agreed with the German position in favour of should. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the Commission proposal as integrated by the NETHERLANDS, but not a clear position of those present on the question should/shall. On this last issue, the Commission would decide, after an internal consultation with the legal experts with regard to possible legal consequences of replacing should with shall in the text to be included into the ATEX Guidelines. Action II COMM to include into the ATEX Guidelines 10.2 the text proposed in doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/03, adding Evaluation and to Test result supporting the decision, after an internal consultation about possible legal consequences related to changing should accompany into shall accompany. Application of ATEX Guidelines 3.3 Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/04 The Chairperson introduced a proposal of text to be included into ATEX Guidelines 3.3, in order to clarify and to prevent/avoid any inadequate interpretation with regard to the definition of manufacturer and the application of conformity assessment procedures based on quality assurance. Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) reported on discussion at the last ExNBG meeting, with a general agreement to support the proposal. 192

193 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The UNITED KINGDOM agreed on the proposal but suggested to improve the text in order to clarify the relationship with the standard EN 13980: , as mentioned at previous WG meetings. The NETHERLANDS also agreed but pointed out that the expression It would not be reasonable was misleading: this part should be reworded. FRANCE recalled the relevant Annexes IV and VII to the Directive and underlined the differences to be considered in production processes and the need to control and to carry out audits with regard to subcontractors, by the Notified Body. AUSTRIA suggested revising the paper also in light of specific provisions of the New Legal Framework. The Chairperson welcomed comments and contributions provided by Member States, and noted general agreement on improving the wording of the proposal, taking into consideration the results of the discussion, and on submitting the revised paper to a 4 week period circulation on CIRCA. Mr. Solzi (Orgalime-ANIA) expressed the need to reach a final text, based on the general agreement, as soon as possible, as the problem was very significant for industry. The UNITED KINGDOM said that the most important thing was to obtain a good and useful text. They proposed to co-operate with the Commission to draft an improved text. The NETHERLANDS also offered their co-operation. Action III COMM to co-operate with UK and NL to draft an improved text for the ATEX Guidelines 3.3, taking into consideration their remarks. New proposal, to be submitted to written approbation in a 4 weeks period circulation on CIRCA. Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/05 The NETHERLANDS introduced the document, on the information to be supplied by manufacturers for possible repairs, also with regard to spare parts. An amendment was proposed to ATEX Guidelines , in order to clarify point 1.0.6(c) of Annex II to the ATEX Directive, as well as specific actions to the ExNB Group and to CEN and CENELEC. The UNITED KINGDOM said that this proposal would be too detailed to be included in Guidelines, with regard to expression where appropriate in the Directive. GERMANY observed that specific standards were already available on this issue. In order to carry out possible repairs, detailed information would be needed, but it was not always easy to get it from manufacturers. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) thought that the proposal would include into the Guidelines some elements already covered by standards dealing with repair for specific equipment (in particular for electrical equipment), with or without information from manufacturer. For that, there would be no need to go further into the question. The Chairperson agreed on the need to make reference to existing standards. 38 EN 13980:2002 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Application of quality systems 193

194 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The NETHERLANDS, taking into consideration the discussion, proposed to provide a revised version of the paper, including references to relevant standards, for the next WG meeting. This was agreed. Action IV NL to provide a revised version of the proposal, including references to relevant standards, to be submitted at the next WG meeting. Borderline list for ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/06 SWEDEN introduced the revised version of the borderline list for ATEX products, according to comments provided during and after the previous WG meeting. It could not be considered complete and exhaustive of course, but it was submitted for confirmation and publication on the EUROPA website. The NETHERLANDS appreciated the list, but asked to add, in Components - Conduits/Pipes, a mention to the stopping system. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that the term conduit had been chosen in general, for electric cables and other equipment: it could lead to misunderstanding, without further explanation on the kind of conduit. FRANCE agreed on the need to add a mention to the access to those conduits, with the flameproof enclosure, indicating that this would be covered by the scope of direct application. SWEDEN recalled previous discussions, also on flameproof enclosures. They would update the list, according to suggestions provided, to approve and publish it. The Chairperson noted the agreement on the list, as revised according Dutch and French comments. The updated list would be published on the ATEX website on EUROPA 39. Action V SE to update the list taking into consideration NL and FR comments. COMM to publish the updated list on the ATEX website on EUROPA. Notified Bodies of Category 3 EC-Type Examination Certificates - ATEX Guidelines 10.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/06 UK proposal to re-draft ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/07 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the new paper with a proposal to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.2, based on their experience, in order to better explain the previous note and to offer guidance with regard to specific situation. The NETHERLANDS pointed out a possible contradiction in the text in the case of products covered by more than one category, 2 and How to apply the Directive: 194

195 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The UNITED KINGDOM proposed to further check the text, and include there some contents from point 6 Complex cases of Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/06. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also thought that the proposed text should be clarified in this case for products of category 2 and 3, or parts of a product according to their use. The Chairperson noted the general agreement to ask the UNITED KINGDOM to clarify the text of the proposal, to be submitted at the next WG meeting for approval. Action VI UK to clarify the text of the proposal with regard to products of more than one Category, to be submitted at the next WG meeting. Definition of non-electrical equipment Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/08 SWEDEN introduced the paper, informing that the CEN Technical Committee dealing with nonelectrical equipment would change the current definition of non-electrical equipment in the revision of the standard EN , in a sense that could create some confusion. They asked the Member States to reply to CEN by proposing an alternative solution, as proposed in the paper. GERMANY said that definition of non-electrical equipment could be found in standards and guidelines; new definitions could lead to not clear or incoherent situations. The decision of CEN TC 305 was related to the issue of generators, but it would not be convenient to discuss of the issue in the Working Group, as it was very technical and it would be very difficult to find a solution. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) thought that both definitions could be valid. The Chairperson suggested to SWEDEN contacting directly with the CEN TC 305 in order to submit their proposal. SWEDEN agreed and invited also the other Member States to participate. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that there were no opportunities to modify the revised standard. He had revised the standard, being aware of Swedish concerns on different definitions. The Chairperson thanked all the contributions, hoping that these concerns could not lead to challenge the new standard later on. How should the directive be applied to filter units and vented silo bins? (proposed revision of the Consideration Paper on Filter Units) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/10 GERMANY introduced the paper, already submitted to the ADCO group, as an extension of the current Consideration Sheet on Filter Units 41. They recalled discussions on equipment connected to silos (silo bins), with some interpretation problems, and asked for contributions and remarks from the other members of the Working Group. 40 EN :2001 Non-electrical equipment for potentially explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Basic method and requirements 41 How should the Directive be applied to filter units? 195

196 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 ITALY considered useful the extension of the current Consideration Sheet on filter units to silo bins, but asked for clarification on some changes, as for example the cut of the final paragraph in point 2). Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also noted the missing part in point 2) as well as other possible errors and confusions in the new proposed draft of the document, a too long one. The Chairperson said that the Commission would check the current Consideration Paper on Filter Units with regard to its contents and the German proposal, and asked to all the members, in particular to GERMANY and the CEN/CENELEC Consultant, to contribute to improve the proposal, to be followed up at the next WG meeting. Action VII COMM to check the current Consideration Paper on Filter Units. ALL to contribute to improve the proposal, to be followed up at the next WG meeting. Treatment of obsolescence of harmonised standards by notified bodies (proposed addition to ATEX Guidelines 10.4) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/13 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, proposing ad addition and re-draft of the ATEX Guidelines 10.4, on the need to establish a clear common policy by Notified Bodies with obsolete harmonised standards, also in line with the re-draft of ATEX Guidelines GERMANY asked for the real need for the addition of a new 10.4, as 10.3 already dealt with the issue of the state of the art. They recalled that standards were periodically revised, and when significant changes took place, it has been agreed to indicate it in the foreword. For that, there would not be any reason to add this paragraph to the ATEX Guidelines. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) observed that the expression demonstrates conformity with the new version of the standard, included in the proposal, would not be in line with the Directive: conformity should be demonstrated with the essential requirement of the Directive, and then it should be checked in the new version of the standard, taking into consideration the state of the art. About new standards, he confirmed that an indication on significant changes would be added by the ESO s. The NETHERLANDS agreed with GERMANY, as 10.4 would deal with the need for a manufacturer to confirm the result of its assessment with a Notified Body; but 10.3 should already cover all the aspect related to changes in the state of the art. DENMARK observed that the proposal would not be in line with Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/12 42 with three cases of practical application of the revised 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines. The manufacturer could decide to ask for verification to a Notified Body, but in the proposal it would be stated as compulsory. The UNITED KINGDOM replied that they had drafted the proposal with the aim to clarify some conflictive points, not to extend 10.3, for common guidance when there would not be any change in the state of the art. 42 See point 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies - Information on ExNB Type exam certificates and state of art (under consideration) 196

197 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 FRANCE observed that the indication about changes in the state of the art would be applied in the future for new standards, not for the past ones; for that, they submitted that paper on Substantial modifications from EN to EN (ATEX_WG/07/2/10). The Chairperson noted the general agreement on take apart the UK proposal, to follow up the situation on the application of the revised 10.3 and the indication in the foreword of new standards. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson recalled that the last consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on 11 April 2008 (see EUROPA website) 43, in 22 official languages. Next list would be published as soon as possible, probably in July or August Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) orally reported on activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305. A written report would be made available on CIRCA. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally reported on activities of the CENELEC Technical Committee 31. No relevant activity had been performed with regard to the previous period. In some cases, there were some delays in production of new standards, as fewer harmonised standards were being used in support of the Directive; it would not be a convenient situation. Other standards not published yet in April would be included in next sending by CENELEC. He mentioned also some problems with supersession dates from standard series EN to series EN The Chairperson confirmed that the problem would be solved in the next publication. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, covering the period November June 2008, dealing with activities related to CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31 (see Annex II). Among other issues, he mentioned the last development in international standardisation, new electrical and non-electrical standards, revision in process, classification of changes into substantial and no-substantial with regard to the state of the art, etc. A written report would be made available on CIRCA. On request from the UNITED KINGDOM on EN 1755: , he said that amendments concerning different aspects (mechanical and electrostatic risks), would be sent out for vote. Substantial modifications due to change from standards series EN to series EN Doc. ATEX_WG/07/2/10 43 ATEX Standardization: 44 EN 1755:2000 Safety of industrial trucks - Operation in potentially explosive atmospheres - Use in flammable gas, vapour, mist and dust 45 Series EN Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres 46 Series EN Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres 197

198 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 The Chairperson proposed to discuss the issue at the next Working Group meeting, when a position paper from Notified Bodies (ExNBG) would be available. This was agreed. Action VIII ExNBG to submit a position paper on the issue at the next WG meeting. Standard Marking Evolution (new edition of EN ) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/09 FRANCE presented the paper on the marking system from EN : the harmonised version of the standards has been produced in 2006, but a new 2007 version produced by IEC was available, introducing two complementary concepts: Group III for dust atmospheres and Equipment Protection Level. In consequences, some modification in marking took place, with possibilities of confusion or misunderstanding or users. They proposed to use a specific marking system to avoid that. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) explained that the matter came from the IEC level for dusts, as it was a global standard: marking systems for other non-european countries could lead to problems with regard to the Directive, by a legal point of view. There was a more complex system and some confusion could arise with Groups II and III, and in this situation, also indications and instructions from the manufacturer should be taken into consideration, not only the marking. A discussion was under way at national committee level, so it could be convenient to wait for results. The NETHERLANDS shared the French concerns, recalling similar problems in the United States, and asked for reliable solution. AUSTRIA also agreed with FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS on the need to find a solution for those problems in marling, by involving all the interested parties at global level. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) reported on considerable debates in the group dealing with marking systems. Problems and confusion could arise when markings were used in combination, and a possible solution could be based on separated different markings for gas and dusts. FRANCE underlined that the real problem in the standard was the proposed alternative marking without any clear difference between gas and dusts, with the effect to lead to confusion. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) agreed on the validity of French concerns and suggested submitting them to TC 31, to be taken into consideration in the discussion. The Chairperson summarised the discussion and proposed to follow-up the issue at the next WG meeting, with further information and updates from the CEN/CENELEC Consultant and CENELEC. Action IX CEN/CENELEC Consultant and CENELEC to provide information and report on the issue at the next WG meeting. 47 EN :2006 Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres - Part 0: General requirements (IEC :2004 (Modified)) 198

199 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the last meeting of the UNECE WP.6 48 meeting in March 2008, to decide on future steps. Next preparatory meeting will be held on 29 September 2008 in Paris, with also the IECEx meeting and representatives from the European Commission, Member States, etc. Each country would be requested to present their specific situation, to have a complete picture on possible differences and to search for a common way. After that, the Committee would meet in Geneva on 3 November AUSTRIA asked for marking systems on IEC equipment. GERMANY replied that there were no technical requirements, with marking on equipment, but the aim to promote free trade, with market standards. Action X COMM and DE to follow up the issue, to report on new developments at the next WG meeting. 5. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO The NETHERLAND (Chairperson of ATEX ADCO) reported on the last ADCO meeting held The Hague on 11 and 12 June Among the items discussed, he remarked the useful presence of the representative of the ExNB Group. More details would be included in a short written report, to be provided soon. See also the relevant folder in the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 49. Action XI NL (ADCO Chair) to provide a short written report, to be attached to the minutes of the WG meeting. 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Information on ExNB Type exam certificates and state of art (under consideration) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/12 Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) reported on the last meeting of the ExNB Group (27-28 November 2007) and introduced, for information purposes, the paper ExNB/07/306 on the practical application of the revised 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines, dealing with certificates and the state of the art. The paper was still under discussion, taking into consideration three possible cases, and comments had been requested in order to improve it during summer time and to submit it at the next ExNBG meeting, to be held on November Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) sb=title 199

200 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 DENMARK considered the paper very useful to clarify the situation. Nevertheless, CEN and CENELEC should reach an agreement to take a decision on whether a significant change in the state of the art take place, or not, and to properly communicate it to the users of standards. The NETHERLANDS substantially agreed with DENMARK and remarked the role of manufacturers with regard to possible modification to state of the art. Would be necessary for a manufacturer to ask for a technical advice from a Notified Body in any case? Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) said that, in light of responsibilities of manufacturer, it would be up to him/her to contact a Notified Body, when the situation would not be clear. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC) clarified, as an author of the paper, that it was a re-elaboration from another text, with different practical cases to be considered: the manufacturer could contact a Notified Body according to that. 7. Revision of the New Approach: state of play Mr. Bilalis (Commission) introduced a presentation on The New Legislative Framework, including updated information on the review of the New Approach and the formal approbation of the new legislative tools: Regulation and Decision (see Annex I). It had been finally adopted in the European Council on 23 June 2008 and it would be published on the OJEU in July or August 2008; it was expected to enter in force on 1 st January For further details, see the New Approach website on EUROPA 50. The Chairperson added that the Commission services were discussing the way to follow with regard the alignment of current New Approach Directives to the New Legal Framework: revision, when necessary, or just adaptation to the main provisions. In particular, for the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, taking into consideration that it was a recent directive in force since 1 st July 2003 without any specific operational problems, the most probably solution would be the inclusion into an omnibus proposal, in order to adapt it to some provisions of the Decision. In any case, it would be very useful to receive any comments, remarks and proposal from Member States and other interested parties and stakeholder, to have a picture as clear as possible of the situation in view of further practical steps. DENMARK suggested that validity of EC-Type Examination certificates should be limited also in the ATEX Directive, as in the new Machinery Directive (5 years), to take into consideration the state of the art. Furthermore, the Regulation mentioned a database for market surveillance: they asked when the Commission would take the decision on the contents of that general archiving and exchange of information system. Mr. Bilalis (Commission) replied that discussion was under way with regard to this issue, as well as the electronic infrastructure to be created. AUSTRIA thought that in the ATEX Directive, the aspects related to accreditation for notified bodies with regard to conformity assessment procedures and modules, would be essential, in particular when a Notified Body could have operative branches in different Member States. They also supported the remarks of DENMARK on the market surveillance database. 50 New Approach : 200

201 XIX. 25 JUNE 2008 Mr. Bilalis (Commission) said that a Notified Body could be active in other Member States, but in any case it should need the accreditation in the Member State where it would be located, disregarding its property. The Chairperson thanked the suggestion provided. At the next meeting more comments and remarks on next steps would be collected; in the meantime, the presentation on the New Legal Framework would be uploaded on CIRCA. Action XII COMM to upload on CIRCA the presentation on the New Legal Framework. 8. Any other business Documents in electronic format (Orgalime-ANIE) Mr. Solzi (Orgalime-ANIA) proposed a question regarding instructions/indications from manufacturers in electronic format. They had sent a written paper on the issue and asked to open a discussion on that at the next meeting. AUSTRIA suggested taking into consideration the New Legal Framework to deal with the issue. In any case, relevant documents should be provided in paper format, not only on CD s or other electronic means. The Chairperson agreed on uploading the Orgalime-ANIE document on CIRCA, to be discussed at the next WG meeting. Interface between ATEX product and user Directives (EUTurbines) The Chairperson informed on a paper received from EUTurbines about some aspects of the interface between the ATEX product and user Directives: it would be made available on CIRCA for the next meeting. Contacts with DG Employment (in charge of 1999/92/EC Directive) would be reestablished soon in order to clarify those interface aspects. 9. Next meeting date The Chairperson confirmed that the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group would be held, as already announced, on 11 December 2008, the day after the ADCO Group meeting, both in Brussels. 201

202 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 23 January 2009 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Catherine KOECKX (ENTR/I4) 0. Welcome Mr. Calvo Basarán (Commission) and the Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. They recalled that it was the second ATEX Working Group meeting of 2008, already planned on December 2008, but it had to be moved to January 2009 due to unavailability of adequate Commission premises and facilities. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX/08/2/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 25 June 2008 Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes. The minutes of the meeting held on 25 June 2008 were approved. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Explanation of the issue of direct control (from the draft Consideration Paper on Gas detectors apparatus) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/12 The Chairperson recalled that at the last WG meeting, it was agreed to take apart the draft Consideration Paper and to change the wording of the ATEX Guidelines 3.10.

203 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 GERMANY introduced a paper with explanations on the issue of direct control with regard to gas detector apparatus and other related terms. Application of ATEX Guidelines 3.3 Docs. ATEX_WG/08/2/03, 08/2/03_1, 08/2/03_2 The Chairperson recalled the 4-weeks circulation procedure on CIRCA on the paper proposed by COMM. Two comments had been received: from Orgalime-ZVEI and from Germany. Mr. Huhle (Orgalime-ZVEI) explained their comment, proposing to replace third party with subcontractor in order to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding with the current use of the term third party to indicate certification and notified bodies. Furthermore, they proposed to add a paragraph extracted from the first edition of the ATEX Guidelines, regarding a specific situation of same products with different labels. GERMANY also proposed to replace third party with subcontractor, and supported the Orgalime-ZVEI proposal. The Chairperson noted the general agreement to approve the paper, with the changes proposed. The new 3.3 would be included in the ATEX Guidelines as soon as possible. Action I COMM to include in the ATEX Guidelines the new text for 3.3 as approved, on the basis of the new COMM proposal, replacing third party with subcontractor and including the text proposed by Orgalime-ZVEI. Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/08/02/04 The NETHERLANDS introduced the revised proposal on the information to be provided by manufacturers for repair of equipment. The Chairperson recalled discussion on the issue at the last ADCO meeting. FRANCE announced a comment on NL proposal, to be submitted and distributed in written form. Mr. Esposito (Notified Body, Italy) said that the proposal was positive, even if the mentioned standard EN was not harmonised, as it was not a product standard. It would be very useful as dealt with fundamental requirements not covered by other harmonised standards. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) considered the proposal interesting to discuss, also in light of the other ATEX Directive, 1999/92/EC, use of equipment. The standard did not apply to products placed on the market as new; the reference could be discussed. DENMARK thought that the NL proposal was not a suggestion for harmonising that standard, but as a contribution for manufacturers of equipment. They considered it interesting but noted some problems in wording, maybe too restrictive: DENMARK was not in favour to give that right to manufacturers. The NETHERLANDS proposed to wait for the written report from the ADCO meeting and for written comments from FRANCE and other Committee members. The Chairperson noted the agreement on discussing the issue at the next meeting, with the necessary information as indicated by the NETHERLANDS. Action II NL (as ADCO Chair) to provide a written report on discussion held at the ADCO meeting on the issue, in order to take into consideration comments and remarks for a new improved version of the proposal, to be discussed at the next WG meeting. 51 EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 19: Equipment repair, overhaul and reclamation (IEC :2006) 203

204 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 FR and ALL, to provide written comments on the proposal. Notified Bodies of Category 3 EC-Type Examination Certificates Doc. ATEX_WG/08/1/07 rev. 1 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the revised paper to re-draft ATEX Guidelines 10.2, including some clarification with regard to the previous version. Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) confirmed that the NBG had discussed the question, taking position in a Decision Sheet in accordance with the Directive, stating that for Category 3 equipment, only a type examination certificate could be issued, not CE-Type. For equipment at the same time of Category 2 and 3, a EC-Type examination certificate should refer to the highest requirements, for Category 2; otherwise, according to the use and zone, separated certificates should be issued. GERMANY reported on discussion with national experts, and they basically agreed on the text. There were more difficulties with the examples provided: as in the last sentence in the last paragraph, the same applies. The UNITED KINGDOM proposed to delete that last sentence, to remove any possible confusion. Mr. Esposito (Notified Body, Italy) agreed with the UK proposal. More specific examples could be useful to help manufacturers, notified bodies and notifying authorities. FRANCE also asked for including further examples. They proposed to follow up the issue at the next WG meeting. The Chairperson proposed to approve the UK clarified proposal, removing the last sentence as proposed by GERMANY, as a first step to improve the situation, and to keep open the issue for further discussion and more specific examples, to be provided by ExNBG, FRANCE and all the Committee members. This was agreed. Action III COMM to include in the ATEX Guidelines the new text for 10.2 according to the clarified UK proposal, with the last sentence The same applies removed. FR, ExNBG and ALL, to provide more examples on the application of the point, to further clarify it, to be submitted at the next WG meeting. Application of the Directive to filter units and vented silo bins Docs. ATEX_WG/08/1/10 rev. 1, 08/2/05 The Chairperson introduced the discussion on extending the current Consideration Paper on Filter Units 52 to vented silo bins, with the revised version of the German proposal, and a contribution by the CEN/CENELEC Consultant. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that his paper had been drafted with regard to the first version of the German proposal, so he proposed to postpone the discussion. GERMANY introduced the paper, improving their first proposal in wording and recovering a missing part from the current Consideration Paper. They suggested approving it as useful guidance, as those systems were widely used in Germany. The Chairperson noted a general agreement on approving the revised Consideration Paper, to be published on EUROPA website, but still keeping the point for further comments and contributions from the CEN/CENELEC Consultant. Action IV COMM to publish the revised Consideration Paper according to the last DE proposal. 52 How should the Directive be applied to filter units? 204

205 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 CEN/CENELEC Consultant to submit his updated contribution, with regard to the last DE proposal, for any possible further discussion and improvement at the next WG meeting. Format of the documentation required by (among others) the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/06 Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) presented the paper with a proposal on format of documentation to be provided by manufacturers, in specific cases of orders with identical equipment, or clients claiming electronic versions. AUSTRIA said that the situation in the most recent Directives should be taken into consideration. For the new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, Guidelines were currently under drafting process: it could be useful to wait for that, before taking any decision for the ATEX sector. In the Low Voltage Directive, it had been agreed that electronic documentation could be acceptable only in a usable format. FRANCE recalled the question of the effective availability of documentation, at the place where the product would be delivered, also where there was no available IT systems. DENMARK also thought that documentation in paper version should be better to comply with the requirement of the Directive. In any case, they supported AUSTRIA to wait for the solution agreed in the new MD Guidelines. GERMANY agreed with DENMARK. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on taking into consideration the new MD Guidelines for further discussion on the issue. COMM would report on that at the next WG meeting. Action V COMM to report on progress in draft Guidelines for the new Machinery Directive, to be taken into consideration for further discussion on the issue. Proposal for a Consideration Paper on Steam Turbines Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/07 The Chairperson said that EUTurbines proposed a Consideration Paper on Steam Turbines. As no representatives of EUTurbines were present, he suggested carrying over the point to the next WG meeting. Action VI EUTurbines to submit their proposal at the next WG meeting. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson recalled that the last consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 20 August 2008 (see EUROPA website) 53, in 22 official languages. The next list had been already sent for publication: it would be available before the end of January Standardisation work in CEN TC ATEX Standardization: 205

206 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) orally reported on activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305. Last meeting took place on December 2008 in Berlin, also with Cenelec TC 31. New standards had been published, some of them under the new Machinery Directive; there were a number of preliminary projects and work in progress, as well as standards to be revised, in particular dealing with quality management systems. Co-operation with IEC on international standardization had been developed. A detailed written report would be attached to the minutes of the meeting (see Annex I) and made available on CIRCA. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 The Chairperson noted that no representative for CENELEC TC 31 was present. Mr. Sinclair communicated on December that it would not be able to attend the meeting. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/08 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, covering the period June-December He provided statistics on assessment of standards and projects of standards, and outlined some relevant aspects on electrical and non-electrical standards, as well as on international standardization. Substantial modifications due to change from standards series EN to series EN Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/10 Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) presented the paper, drafted by the Group of Notified Bodies as ExNB/08/323 rev 1, on practical applications of the revised 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines. It included a proposal for an Annex ZY (informative) in order to indicate any significant changes in a new standard with regard to a previous edition. ExNBG would convene a specific working group to draft a list of amendments for standards already published. The paper was still under discussion, and comments had been received from CEN. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) mentioned possible translation problems in German, in the harmonisation of the draft in TC 31 and Cenelec Technical Secretariat. The document was still to be voted, at the level of national committees. DENMARK remarked that in the example of Annex ZY, in General conclusions on the change of the State of the Art by this standard, the sentence said no significant change : in such a case, there would be no indication on what to do with minor or editorial changes. Some positive wording should be included in the conclusions as well. The Chairperson underlined the need to avoid giving any idea of useless changes in standards. FRANCE asked for the value of the statement issued by the Notified Body for EC-Type Examination, as indicated in Case 2, second bullet. GERMANY observed that the words significant or substantial, to define changes, would be the same. Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) clarified that it was only an example, as a first version for the standard ; there was space to add comments and proposals for improvement. A statement could mean a simple , or a letter, etc., in order to confirm that a change should be made. It would depend on different practices of Notified Bodies. 54 Series EN Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres 55 Series EN Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres 56 EN :2006 Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres - Part 0: General requirements (IEC :2004 (Modified)) 206

207 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 The UNITED KINGDOM asked for more information toward the vote, in order to take in due consideration any contribution for a good and useful tool. The Chairperson considered that this work would be very useful and agreed to ask Member States and all the Committee Members to provide comments and suggestions to improve the draft, before the formal vote. Action VII ALL to provide contributions to improve the proposal for an informative Annex ZY as shown in the ExNBG paper, before the formal vote. Standard Marking Evolution (new edition of EN ) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/11 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his paper, based on previous discussions from a French document. After the Cenelec TC 31 meeting in Berlin in September 2008, it was decided to take on board the proposal from FRANCE for the Annex ZY in the new version of standard EN Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) said that the proposal was acceptable, but its implementation should be checked in future standards, to be analysed by the relevant committees. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY provided an updated report on the issue, mentioning the last UNECE WP.6 57 meetings in Paris in September 2008 (preparatory) and in Geneva in November In the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres, a number of countries (Australia, European Union, Russian Federation, United States of America) had presented their current situation about regulatory approaches in the sector using a specific questionnaire 58, in order to provide a complete picture towards possible common solutions. Next preparatory meeting will be held in Stockholm in May 2009, and the next session of the Working Party would be held on 24 and 25 November 2009 in Geneva. Mr. Klütsch (Orgalime) stated that Orgalime appreciated very much the work at UNECE and the IECEx scheme, as well as the support from the European Commission to those efforts. The Chairperson confirmed the support from the Commission services on general principles on world trade issue, and international recognition, standardisation and recognition, but always taking at the best level of consideration also health and safety issues and the European legal framework. Action VIII COMM and DE to follow up the issue, to report on new developments at the next WG meeting. 5. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO The NETHERLAND (Chairperson of ATEX ADCO) reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Brussels on 22 January A number of points were included also in the agenda of the WG. With regard to the paper on air driven fan, a specific working group had been established, with Czech Republic, Poland, United Kingdom and Notified Bodies. Another relevant point was related to vacuum cleaners and the requests from Tiger-Vac: the ADCO group had agreed on the Danish 57 Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6)

208 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 position, to send a definitive answer to the manufacturer after a 4-weeks consultation period. In addition, Finland had pointed out a question on withdrawal of a certificate; reactions had been requested to Italy and Notified Bodies. Other discussed issues were related to a Dutch proposal for clarification of EHSR s; a flowchart for safeguard clause procedures; a European project proposed by Prosafe; a questionnaire on appointment of Notified Bodies in Member States; the financing of ADCO groups and activities in the New Legal Framework; and a call for a new ADCO Chair for Further details on the ADCO meeting would be included in a short written report, to be provided soon see also the relevant folder in the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 59. The next ADCO meeting would be held in Luxembourg, on 17 and 18 June ITALY confirmed that they would ask FINLAND to provide more information on withdrawal of the certificate. Mr. Esposito (Notified Bodies) explained the situation of the Italian Notified Body. They also would send specific information. CZECH REPUBLIC clarified the scope and objective of their position on fans. POLAND said that they would report on market surveillance actions, as soon as possible. Action IX NL (ADCO Chair) to provide a short written report, to be attached to the minutes of the WG meeting. 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Update of the list of existing NB-Clarification Sheets The Chairperson recalled the need to re-order the current presentation of ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Standing Committee on EUROPA 60, as it was not clear and, in some cases, out-of-date with regard to new or withdrawn sheets. He proposed to co-operate with the Chair and Technical Secretariat of ExNBG to check the current situation of each Clarification Sheet, in order to present them on EUROPA website as a consolidated list in pdf, in a similar way to Recommendation for Use sheets produced by Notified Bodies under the Machinery Directive, as well as Lifts, PPE, etc. This was agreed. Action X COMM and ExNBG to co-operate to re-order the list of current Clarification Sheets, to be presented on EUROPA website as a consolidated list (similar to Recommendation for Use sheets for the Machinery Directive and others). 7. New Legal Framework: alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC The Chairperson said that this point replaced the one on the state of play on the revision of the New Approach, as the legal acts configuring the New Legislative Framework (NLF) had been approved on June 2008 and published on August 2008 see the relevant website on EUROPA sb=title New Approach: 208

209 XX. 23 JANUARY 2009 Mr. Calvo Basarán (Commission) explained the legal background, including Regulation 764/2008 (on national technical rules and administrative decisions on free movement of products) to be applied from 13 May 2009, and Regulation 765/2008 (on accreditation of conformity assessment bodies, market surveillance and CE marking), to be applied from 1 January 2010; on the other hand, Decision 768/2998/EC would be a toolbox or a basis for future legislation to be applied to the relevant existing Directives. This alignment process would not be easy, and the way to proceed was to be defined on a case-by-case basis, opening specific revision procedures when necessary, or through a legal act as an omnibus, regrouping several directives in a single legal act (not decided yet, maybe a regulation). For the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, there would not be a revision as such, but probably an omnibus approach, without any substantial changes. As a possible timetable, during 2009 the relevant Commission services would develop the preparatory work, in order to identify the elements of the Directive to be aligned, as definitions, obligations of economic operators, harmonised standards, conformity assessment, etc.; on 2010, the Commission proposal would be presented, to enter in force on The Chairperson added that any written contributions to this preparatory work, from Member States and other interested parties, would be very welcome. AUSTRIA remarked that in the new Machinery Directive, there were some market surveillance measures, possibly adaptable also in other directives. Mr. Calvo Basarán (Commission) said that there were no plans to extend those provisions to other directives; each of them should be aligned to the Decision, according to specific situation. In any case, this was a suggestion to be taken into consideration. Action XI COMM to further report on the issue at the next WG meeting. 8. Any other business No other business. 9. Next meeting date The Chairperson proposed, for the next meeting of the ATEX Standing Committee and Working Group, Thursday 25 June 2009, in Brussels, also taking into consideration that the next ATEX ADCO meeting would be held on June 2009, in Luxembourg. Confirmation of this date would be sent via CIRCA and to all the members as soon as possible, according to availability of the Commission premises and facilities. 209

210 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 22 June 2009 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Raffaela FRACONFINI, Ms. Eloisa MORENO TALAYA (ENTR/I4) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/01 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. He said that the paper indicated as ATEX_WG/09/1/03 was not available: the report by the NETHERLANDS (ADCO Chair) would be an oral report by LUXEMBOURG (ADCO Co-Chair). He also announced that Mr. Dill (ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant) was not able to be present at the meeting: in any case, his written report was available as Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/05. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 23 January 2009 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 23 January GERMANY pointed out that at page 5, the reference to TC 301 should be corrected as TC 31. The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2009, with the correction remarked by GERMANY, were approved. The Chairperson proposed to draft a document including the consolidated minutes of the ATEX Working Group meetings from 1997 onwards, in pdf format, to be made available on the ATEX website, for the sake of information, transparency and reference for all the interested parties, in a

211 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 similar way as done for the Machinery Directive 62. This proposal would be discussed at the next WG meeting. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Docs. ATEX_WG/08/02/04, ATEX_WG/09/1/04 The Chairperson recalled the discussion at the last WG meeting as well as at the ADCO meeting held on 21 June 2009, about the proposal from the NETHERLANDS to revise the ATEX Guidelines , about repair of equipment. A further proposal had been received from CYPRUS, for a more elaborate rewriting of the chapter. FRANCE introduced three written comments 63, suggesting modifying the NL proposal: in the first sentence, the expression shall be provided would be should be provided, and extending the wording of the second sentence. SPAIN observed that by a legal point of view, in Annex II to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, EHSR 1.0.6, there was not a clear support to the NL proposal: questions related to repair/maintenance would be rather referred to national legislation. CY proposal appeared more adequate, but the first sentence of the second paragraph should not be an imposition: there were repairs or maintenance operations that could be carried out by any qualified operator. The EHSR fixed the obligations for manufacturers to carry out safe maintenance operations, but it would not possible to define operations to be carried out only by specific operators. In this sense, SPAIN suggested replacing can with could. GERMANY agreed with SPAIN: this was a national legislation matter, different for each situation. Manufacturers had to provide information, but it would not be possible to be more concrete and specific on that, by using an operational standard as EN The NETHERLANDS pointed out that the text was proposed as guidance, not law, in order to better explain the situation for operators. DENMARK agreed on the need for guidelines, not being more concrete than the Directive itself, but with a general reference to a standard. ITALY supported the NL proposal as modified by FRANCE, as more detailed guidance to help the users of the Directive. FRANCE considered that in a guidance document, making reference to standards could be risky, as they would evolve. GERMANY agreed with FRANCE with regard to possible problems from references to standards. In addition, the standard referred to electrical equipment, and it could create confusion for other equipment. SWEDEN agreed with GERMANY. The UNITED KINGDOM underlined that guidelines had no legal status, but they would be important. The modified text proposed by FRANCE was an improvement, but in the last sentence, the word qualified should be replaced by authorized. SPAIN added that, in CY proposal, also reference to Directive 89/655/EEC should be removed, to reaffirm the consideration of national legislations on this issue. 62 Minutes of the Machinery Working Group: 63 Uploaded on CIRCA FR COMMENTS TO WG_ AND PROPOSAL 64 EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 19: Equipment repair, overhaul and reclamation (IEC :2006) 211

212 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) clarified that the referred standard has been written for electrical equipment, but it included also some mechanical equipment (even not all). He suggested that the statement on the text could include the reference to the standard as an example. The Chairperson proposed to work for a consensual proposal on a new text to be included in the ATEX Guidelines, to be reached with the NETHERLANDS, FRANCE and CYPRUS, taking into consideration the submitted papers and the current discussion. This consensual proposal would be submitted to a 4-weeks period circulation on CIRCA, as by October The UNITED KINGDOM suggested that the modified text should be included in Chapter 7 of the ATEX Guidelines, dealing with Used, repaired or modified products and spare parts, better than in Chapter 10 for Documents of conformity. FRANCE agreed on the proposal, including a cross-reference on the issue between and 7. This was agreed. Action I NL, FR, CY and COMM to work together to draft a consensual proposal on a new text for the ATEX Guidelines, taking into consideration the NL text as modified by FR and the CY proposal. When reached, the consensual proposal to be submitted to 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA (October 2009). Category 3 Goods EC-Type Examination Certificates The Chairperson recalled the results on the issue from the last WG meeting, with the new text for 10.2 of the ATEX Guidelines, and the request to provide more examples on the application of the point, in order to further clarify it. FRANCE introduced the French & German proposal for Clarification Sheet for Equipment with Categories two or three, with a table showing different types of markings and the cases where a EC-type Examination Certificate can be issued. The Chairperson said that there was no time to upload this paper on CIRCA before the meeting; it would be uploaded to give time to all the members to have a close look to the table and to prepare reaction for discussion at the next WG meeting, in view to add it to the ATEX Guidelines as a useful example. Action II COMM to upload on CIRCA the FR-DE proposal. ALL to prepare reactions for discussion at the next WG meeting. Remarks on the Consideration Paper on filter units and vented silo bins Docs. ATEX_WG/09/1/08 The Chairperson said that Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) had announced its absence from the meeting. He had sent a paper with remarks on the Consideration Paper on filter units and vented silo bins 65 nits and vented silo bins, as approved at the last WG meeting; it would be introduced and discussed at the next WG meeting. Action III CEN/CENELEC Consultant to introduce his remarks at the next WG meeting. Format of the documentation required by (among others) the ATEX Directive 65 How should the Directive be applied to filter units and vented silo bins? (revised version) 212

213 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/06 The Chairperson reported on progress in draft Guidelines for the new Machinery Directive, as the issue would be considered there. There were no news on that; the Guidelines should be ready before the entering in force of the Directive, so the final version would be taken into consideration at the next meeting. According to those most recent developments, the Orgalime proposal could be adapted as a Consideration Paper, or it could be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines. Action IV COMM to report on the final version of Guidelines to the new Machinery Directive, to be taken into consideration for further discussion on the issue. Proposal for a Consideration Paper on Steam Turbines Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/07 Mr. Boeger (United Turbines) introduced the paper dealing with Steam Turbines, drafted in analogy with the Consideration Paper on Gas Turbines already available 66. It was as an extension of scope for Steam Turbines, as it would be difficult to apply to them the existing guidance for Gas Turbines. POLAND expressed some comments on two situations with regard to steam turbines as potential ignition sources with hot surfaces. They proposed to add a phrase in Clause 4 and an example in Clause 1. GERMANY agreed with POLAND and asked to be more specific on the point. Mr. Boeger (United Turbines) said that the contents of the paper were on line with the current situation in the market. The Chairperson proposed to accept the Consideration Paper integrated with Polish comments, to be published on the ATEX website and to be formally approved at the next Standing Committee meeting in Action V COMM to publish on the ATEX website the Consideration Paper as approved (EUTurbines proposal as modified by PL comments). Requesting evidence of production control Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/09 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper, asking for possible solutions for a situation like that, with more certificates with different Notified Bodies. FRANCE thought that the question was very specific, regarding manufacturers complying with the directive with different certificates issued by different Notified Bodies. Mr Thedens (ExNBG) said that, as a rule for Notified Bodies performing EC-Type examination, manufacturers should inform about any QA notifications: it would be verified by the Notified Body, as part of production control procedures, checking the scope, the activities etc. It would be up to manufacturers to provide any relevant documentation. The UNITED KINGDOM thanked the clarifications from ExNBG but they would like to have something more formal. FRANCE recalled a similar question addressed to ExNBG about Category 3 certificates, without a clear consensus. 66 Application of the directive 94/9/EC to Gas Turbines (revised version) 213

214 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) took the floor as second vice-chairman of ExNBG and representative of a UK Notified Body. As stated by the directive, the responsibility of all certificates was up to manufacturers, for their separate activities. The debate in the United Kingdom was focused on the words manufacturer and operator, and on the possible involvement of Notified Bodies. The Chairperson proposed to send the UK paper to the ExNBG, to ask them to discuss it and to take a formal position on the issue at their next meeting in November It would be discussed again at the next WG meeting. This was agreed. Action VI ExNBG to submit the UK paper at the next NB meeting (November 2009), to take a formal position on the issue. To be followed up at the next WG meeting. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson recalled that the last consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 27 January 2009 (see EUROPA website) 67, in 22 official languages. The next list had been already sent for publication, through the new database system HAS (Harmonised Standards): it would be available before the end of The Chairperson also proposed to use, also for ATEX, the format used for harmonised standards under other New Approach Directives such as Machinery, Lifts, Personal Protective Equipment etc., adding a specific column indicating the Date of first publication of each harmonised standard. It could be useful to have a clear reference on the date when presumption of conformity would be start, also to avoid any possible inconsistencies with regard to the date of cessation of presumption of conformity for standards withdrawn and/or replaced by new standards. This proposal would be formally submitted at the next WG meeting. Action VII COMM to submit at the next WG meeting a proposal to add a Date of first publication column to the list of references of harmonised standards on the OJEU (as used in the Machinery Directive and others). Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/07 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented the Intermediate Report of the Secretariat on activities of CEN Technical Committee 305, including details on the last standards published, as well the work carried out to adapt a number of standards to the new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. The report included also information on review of standards, international cooperation and related ongoing projects. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/10 67 ATEX Standardization: 214

215 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) presented the Report of CENELEC Technical Committee 31, including information on the work mostly developed at international level. Some delay came from question related to the state of the art and substantial modifications, with the need of new certificates for equipment or not. There were opposite views on the issue, also taking into consideration the impact on stakeholders: an opinion to the Committee was requested on the paper, as it would be necessary to put the question in context with specific examples. The UNITED KINGDOM thought it would be better to have not only a statement, but a list of changes. GERMANY and Mr Thedens (ExNBG) recalled that the question of substantial modifications with regard to the state of the art had been included into the ATEX Guidelines and it was very important for the essential requirements and obligations of operators. The Chairperson observed that it would be necessary to reach an agreement on the format, comparing the tables proposed in the CENELEC report and by the ExNBG. All the key contents should be present: a list of changes, and a classification of such changes, as relevant or not in a new version of a standard. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that discussion was still under way and no decision has been taken yet, until the next joint meeting CEN/CENELEC; the next CENELEC TC 31 meeting would be held in Dublin at the end of October In the example shown in the report, a technical decision should be taken with a reasonable change for dust protection equipment: changes in test procedures could be considered as significant changes? The Chairperson asked for possible answers and contributions from Member States in time for the TC 31 meeting in October Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/05 The Chairperson, in absence of Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant), presented his report, providing statistics on assessment of standards and information on electrical and non-electrical fields under discussion. DENMARK addressed a question concerning the issuing of standards with different transition period for CEN and CENELEC: such differences could be quite problematic for manufacturers, in particular with different standards put into service for electrical and mechanical products. They asked those present for information on similar experiences and on possible solutions for a better alignment. Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) said that CEN, according to their rules of procedure, would not have any problem, but so far there were no clear decision on this aspect. Such a decision should be taken by the relevant Technical Committees. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that CENELEC standards had date of withdrawn, for national committees to withdraw conflicting standards and to avoid overlaps, and a transition period of 3 years. The issue should be checked with CEN and the Commission, as well as with the CEN/CENELEC Consultant. The Chairperson agreed with the proposal. The issue would be followed up at the next WG meeting, in order to get a solution in view of adapting the transition time, even if there were not a large number of standards in such a situation. Substantial modifications due to change from standards series EN to series EN Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/10 68 Series EN Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres 69 Series EN Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres 215

216 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) introduced a new version of the paper, as ExNB/09/347, adopted in February, with more examples on the practical application of (the revised) 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines, to be considered also with regard to the previous discussion on the CENELEC paper. This paper it has been submitted to a 4-weeks circulation period on the ExNBG group on CIRCA, and no negative comments had been received: so, it would be signed and formally converted in a Clarification Sheet. The Chairperson thanked Mr. Thedens and confirmed that, when received, this Clarification Sheet would be submitted to the noting procedure by the ATEX Standing Committee. Action VIII ALL to provide comments and contributions on the questions raised in the CENELEC TC 31 report, in particular with regard to the format for significant changes, as referred also in the ExNBG paper. Standard Marking Evolution (new edition of EN ) Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/11 The Chairperson recalled the paper received from Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant). No further comments had been produced. He proposed to merge this point with the previous one, to be followed up at the next meeting. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY provided an updated report on the issue, from the last UNECE WP.6 71 meeting held on 28 May 2009 in Stockholm. The Terms of Reference for the sectorial project on Equipment for Explosive Atmospheres had been adopted, and this document, as well as the report of the meeting itself, would be available on the UNECE WP.6 website. Next steps would be at the meeting in Melbourne in September 2009, to further refine texts on Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs), from different countries, trying to involve as much people as possible in discussions, as a new sectorial project on pipeline safety had been launched. The work on CROs would take into consideration aspects related to placing on the market and lifecycle, repair and maintenance, etc. The next general assembly would be held in Geneva on November Action IX COMM and DE to follow up the issue, to report on new developments at the next WG meeting after the November 2009 WP.6 meeting in Geneva. 5. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO LUXEMBOURG reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Luxembourg on 17 and 18 June 2009, on behalf of the NETHERLANDS (ATEX ADCO Chair). He mentioned a number of issues discussed there, related to the current market surveillance and safeguard actions by Member States, the most recent additions to the ATEX Guidelines, the pending questions on air driven fan as well on the requests from Tiger-Vac on vacuum cleaners and the answer by the ADCO group, etc. Other points concerned the practical implementation of the New Legal Framework and the support from the Commission regarding Market Surveillance activities and communication resources, and on the 70 EN :2006 Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres - Part 0: General requirements (IEC :2004 (Modified)) 71 Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 216

217 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 appointment and surveillance of Notified Bodies. And again, a call for the new ADCO Chair for 2010, to be decided at the next meeting. Further details on the ADCO meeting would be included in a short written report, to be provided soon see also the relevant folder in the ATEX ADCO Group on CIRCA 72. The next ADCO meeting would be held in Brussels, the day before the next ATEX WG meeting, on 15 December Action X LUX (ADCO Co-Chair) to provide a short written report on the last ADCO meeting on June 2009, to be attached to the minutes of the WG meeting. 6. Co-operation between Notified Bodies Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) confirmed that the next meeting of the ATEX Notified Bodies Group (ExNBG) would be held in Brussels on 18 and 19 November Update of the list of existing NB-Clarification Sheets Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/06 The Chairperson announced that the presentation of ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Standing Committee on EUROPA 73 had been reordered, checking their status in cooperation with the Chair and Technical Secretariat of ExNBG. The next step would be to proceed to the noting procedure for the Clarification Sheets already approved by the ExNBG but not yet noted by the Standing Committee: this noting process would be carried out by Written Procedure, placing the Consideration Sheets on CIRCA to make them available for comments, from June to November Without any comments, the Consideration Sheets would be considered as noted and they would be added to the relevant ATEX webpage on EUROPA; in case of comments, they would be submitted to Oral Procedure at the next WG meeting, in order to discuss them and to reach an agreement. If no agreement would be possible at the meeting, the concerned Clarification Sheets should be discussed among the interested parties before to be submitted again to a noting procedure. Mr. Thedens (ExNBG) confirmed the importance and utility of Consideration Sheets especially to help the work of Notified Bodies. All the Consideration Sheets would be checked, updated or withdrawn taking into consideration the current situation of standards and Guidelines. Action XI COMM to submit the valid CS not yet noted, to a noting process, by Written Procedure, uploading them on CIRCA, available for comments from June to November New Legal Framework: alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC The Chairperson confirmed that the work to align the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) was under way, in particular with regard to the provisions of Decision 768/2998/EC. The main elements of the Decision would be included in the ATEX Directive possibly by an omnibus legal act covering also other New Approach directives but in principle without relevant technical changes, especially with regard to the conformity assessment procedures ( modules ). Further information would be provided at the next meeting. Action XII

218 XXI. 22 JUNE 2009 COMM to further report on the issue at the next WG meeting. 8. Any other business No other business. 9. Next meeting date The Chairperson proposed, for the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group, Wednesday 16 December 2009, in Brussels. The day before, Tuesday 15 December 2009, would be devoted to the meeting of the ATEX ADCO group. Confirmation of these dates would be sent via CIRCA and e- mail to all the members as soon as possible, according to availability of the Commission premises and facilities. 218

219 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 16 December 2009 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Raffaela FRACONFINI (ENTR/I4) 0. Welcome Mr. CALVO BASARÁN (COMM) and the Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. At request of the NETHERLANDS as ATEX ADCO Chair, the oral report on the last ADCO meeting would be presented before item 3 of the Agenda, as many issues discussed there, were especially interesting and useful for further discussion at the WG meeting. Also the oral report by COMM on the alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legal Framework would be presented before item 3 of the Agenda. With these changes, the draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 22 June 2009 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 22 June The draft minutes were approved. Proposal for publication on the ATEX website of consolidated minutes of ATEX Working Group meetings ATEX_WG/09/2/12 The Chairperson introduced the proposal to make available on the ATEX website the consolidated minutes of the ATEX Working Group meetings from 1997 onwards, in pdf format, for the sake of

220 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 information, transparency and reference for all the interested parties, in a similar way of the Machinery Directive 74, as proposed at the last meeting. AUSTRIA and SWEDEN raised the problem of possible contradictions or conflicts between the contents in these minutes and in the ATEX Guidelines and other guidance documents. Furthermore, in the Working Group meetings, issues related to Administrative Co-operation had been discussed too. Those contents should be carefully checked. The Chairperson agreed on these concerns and proposed to include a specific disclaimer on the document to be published on the website, as For information purpose only, and only until 2006 for the moment. The Commission services would check the minutes for any sensitive or still open issue; remarks and contributions from all the interested parties would be welcome. Action I COMM to check the consolidated minutes for any sensitive issue to remove, taking into consideration also remarks and contributions from interested parties. Publication to include a specific disclaimer For information purpose only. ALL to provide written remarks and contribution for the publication of consolidated minutes. 3. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Docs. ATEX_WG/09/2/05, ATEX_WG/09/2/07, ATEX_WG/09/2/14, ATEX_WG/09/2/06 The Chairperson explained that at the last meeting, it was agreed to draft a consensual proposal on a new text for the ATEX Guidelines, in co-operation between the NETHERLANDS, FRANCE, CYPRUS and the Commission, and to submit it to a 4-weeks circulation period on CIRCA. But, for some misunderstanding in communication, the consensual proposal had been agreed between COMM and CY and received comments from the UNITED KINGDOM and GERMANY, and at the same moment another proposal had been elaborated by FR and NL. All these documents were submitted at this meeting in order to reach some agreement on the issue. CYPRUS introduced the doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/05, as guidance with an example including reference to standard EN The NETHERLANDS and FRANCE introduced the paper ATEX_WG/09/2/06, with the proposal to add two paragraphs to points and 7.1 of the ATEX Guidelines, without any reference to standards. GERMANY said that they would need more time to analyse the different proposals. Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME) agreed with GERMANY on the need of additional time. CYPRUS pointed out, in the NL+FR paper, a possible error in the reference to the Directive 89/391/EEC 76, and that the last two paragraphs dealt with operators, not manufacturers. The NETHERLANDS thought that there was a need of clarification of all the aspects involved, also for users, not only for manufacturers. POLAND supported the NETHERLANDS. A new document should be drafted putting together the different papers. 74 Minutes of the Machinery Working Group, available on 75 EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 19: Equipment repair, overhaul and reclamation (IEC :2006) 76 Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. The Directive 1999/92/EC is the 15 th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC 220

221 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 FRANCE agreed with the NETHERLANDS and POLAND. Member States should express their comments on the papers, taking into consideration both involved sides, manufacturers and users, in particular with regards to repair. GERMANY agreed on the importance of users and manufacturers at the same time, but recalled that the Guidelines were a document for the Directive 94/9/EC, addressed to manufacturers. Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME) thought that the reference to the user Directive would not be necessary, as clarification was needed with regard to the Directive 94/9/EC, not to the other one. The Chairperson agreed on the need to reach a real consensus on the issue and proposed to upload on CIRCA the two papers from CYPRUS and from FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS, to make them available for all the interested parties. On this basis, the Commission would draft a merged document taking into consideration contributions and remarks from the Committee Members. This new document would be uploaded on CIRCA for a 4-weeks circulation period. This was agreed. Action II COMM to upload on CIRCA the two reference documents (last CY version and joint FR-NL) and to draft a merged document according to contributions and remarks by MS. This new document would be uploaded on CIRCA for a 4-weeks circulation period. Category 3 Goods EC-Type Examination Certificates: FR-DE Proposal for Clarification Sheet for Equipment with Categories two or three Doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/03 FRANCE introduced the paper, drafted with GERMANY, proposing a table with items/examples of equipment with categories two or three. DENMARK had two remarks: the table should be improved by considering also equipment placed outside these zones to provide protection into the zones; and on item 8, for equipment in zones 22 or 21, separate EC-Types examination certificates should be issued. The UNITED KINGDOM appreciated the paper and asked for more clarification on item 4. FRANCE explained that there were two types as barrier protection, to be used in two zones with safety barriers, as indicated with 3 and 2 into brackets; but it would be the same equipment. The Chairperson thanked the remarks and suggested DENMARK to propose improvements to the paper. It could be approved and uploaded on the ATEX website as a Consideration Paper (not a clarification sheet ), but always as a living document. This was agreed. Action III COMM to upload on the website the FR-DE proposal as approved, as a Consideration Paper, to be formally approved by the Standing Committee at the next meeting. Remarks on the Consideration Paper on filter units and vented silo bins Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/08 rev. 1 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented two comments on the Consideration Paper on filter units and vented silo bins 77. The first one was a more linguistic problem: the wording should be improved to avoid possible misinterpretation. The second one was most important, as the 77 How should the Directive be applied to filter units and vented silo bins? (revised version) 221

222 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 explosion vent was intended to reduce the effects of an explosion, not to avoid an explosion, as it appeared by the reference to Annex II The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with Mr. Dill and suggested to retain the explosion vent as an example of integrated explosion safety, making reference to Annex II The Chairperson, with the agreement of those present, confirmed that the Consideration Paper would be improved according to the suggestions of Mr. Dill and the UNITED KINGDOM. Action IV COMM to remove from the published Consideration Paper the sentence marked by the CEN/CENELEC Consultant as wrong and potentially misleading, retaining the explosion vent as an example related to Annex II, Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper pointing out a possible confusion in the ATEX Guidelines 11.2 with regard to marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere, taking into consideration also the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC and the Machinery Directive. The Chairperson noted the agreement of those present on the convenience to further discuss this issue at the next WG meeting: the paper would be tabled in the Agenda and the UNITED KINGDOM would submit a formal proposal to improve the ATEX Guidelines. Action V COMM to table the UK paper on the Agenda for the next WG meeting. UK to submit a proposal for improving the related wording in the ATEX Guidelines. Format of the documentation required by (among others) the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/08/2/06 The Chairperson reported on the final version of Guidelines to the new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC 78 : it dealt with Instructions at 254 and 255 and re-affirm that all health and safety related instructions must be supplied in paper form, even it recognized that it is often useful for the instructions to be made available in electronic form and on the Internet as well as in paper form. The NETHERLANDS thought that the end-user should have the documents in paper form. DENMARK agreed with the NETHERLANDS and not on the ORGALIME proposal. FRANCE supported the NETHERLANDS and DENMARK. The Chairperson proposed to follow for ATEX the same indications for Machinery and to take apart the ORGALIME paper as such, but recognising its importance for further horizontal discussions with other Directives as LVD, also taking into consideration alignment exercise to the New Legislative Framework. This was agreed. Requesting evidence of production control Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/09 Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chair) introduced the paper with the answer of ExNBG to the UK comment, on the interpretation of the word manufacture in Annex III(3), as discussed at the 78 Guide to application of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC: 1st_edit _en.pdf 222

223 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 ExNBG meeting held in November According to that, it would not be necessary to check the Quality Assessment notifications of the manufacturer concerning the information about the product process during the type approval. The UNITED KINGDOM said that they would need to think about the answer and that they would reply in writing. The NETHERLANDS remarked that the information should be available in all cases; it would be a question of coordination between Notified Bodies. Mr. Sinclair (ExNBG vice-chair) explained the specific value and use of EC-Type examination certificates, also when involving different Notified Bodies. The UNITED KINGDOM introduced another paper related with the same question, on the Minimum content for an EC Type Examination Test Report. They suggested the need for improved guidance on the information to be given in test reports, as at the moment there was no clear specification on what it should be included there. The Chairperson said that the UK paper would be uploaded on CIRCA and tabled on the Agenda for the next WG meeting, to be discussed also with contributions from the ExNBG and Member States, and taking into consideration the situation in other Directives, as a horizontal issue. Action VI COMM to table the UK paper on Minimum Content for an EC Type Examination Test Report on the Agenda for the next WG meeting, to be discussed with contributions from ExNBG and MS and taking into consideration the situation in other Directives. 4. Progress on standardisation ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson recalled that the last consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 27 January 2009 (see EUROPA website) 79 ; a new list was under way. COMM Proposal to add a Date of first publication column ATEX_WG/09/2/04 The Chairperson presented the proposal to add a Date of first publication column to the to the list of references of harmonised standards on the OJEU, as used in other directives, in order to provide clearer information on presumption of conformity. The proposal was agreed. The next publication would include the Date of first publication column. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented the report on the activities of his Technical Committee. It included information on European Standards published and ongoing projects, and on the last meetings of the European and international Technical Committees dealing with the ATEX sector. Relevant issues had been discussed concerning the transitional period for superseded standards, the procedure for state of the art and the co-operation on standardization projects. Mr. Von Hoegen underlined that the enquiry stage for the standard ISO/IEC Application of 79 Standardization - ATEX: 223

224 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 quality systems for equipment manufacture (revision of EN 13980), planned to begin in the first quarter of 2010, had already started. The report in written form would be uploaded on CIRCA. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/15 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) presented the report on the activities of his Technical Committee. It included information on the publication of the standard EN :2009 and related issues, as well as on the last meeting in Dublin and discussion on the state of the art, Annex Z and adaptation to changes in standards. A Joint Working Group with CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31 would be created to discuss the question. DENMARK underlined that manufacturers should follow the state of the art. If a product was manufactured using an old standard, it would not be acceptable. The NETHERLANS agreed with DENMARK. Manufacturers needed time to adapt their products, a transitional period, taking into consideration also the question of validity of certificates. Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) remarked the question on significant or not significant changes in standards and the transitional period. It would not possible to establish a general transitional period (for example 3 years) in any case: it would depend on the essential requirements involved, to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) clarified that the question referred specifically to products already on the market, not just in the transitional period, but placed on the market using standards beyond the transitional period. The Chairperson recalled the basic principles on harmonised standards superseded by a new or an updated standard: during the transitional period, as indicated on the consolidated list published on the Official Journal, by a legal point of view both standards the old and the new one would confer presumption of conformity. The new superseding standard would represent the current state of the art, to be followed by manufacturers: even both standards could confer presumption of conformity, the Commission promoted the use of the newest standard. Of course, products manufactured using a superseded standard after the transitional period, would not be acceptable. The question to be followed was the determination of the state of the art and the way to indicate it on the standards. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/11 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented the report on his activities during the second semester It included information on the number of CEN/ISO and CENELEC/IEC standards assessed, on electrical and non-electrical standards, and on actual fields under discussion: ventilators, gas turbines and risk assessment issues. He asked those present for views and comments on the report. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) recalled a point discussed at a meeting on 15 December 2009, on electricity-related standards, in particular on voltage tolerance in distribution systems, with an average +/- 10 or 15%. There were pressures from regulators on what it would be happen in the future within 1 year, for a possible increase of the tolerance allowed in ATEX equipment. Work was in progress at the concerned technical board CENELEC TC 8X System aspects of electrical energy supply and final answer was not decided yet. Substantial modifications due to change from standards series EN to series EN , including Standard Marking Evolution 80 Series EN Electrical apparatus for potentially explosive atmospheres 224

225 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 Doc. ATEX_WG/09/1/10, ATEX_WG/09/2/08 (ExNB/09/347) - UK Comments on CENELEC TC 31 paper ATEX_WG/09/2/09 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced their comments on CENELEC TC 31 paper presented at the previous ATEX WG meeting on 22 June 2009, concerning the state of the art and the format for significant changes. They thought that the current situation was not acceptable, as changes to the state of the art should be clearly referred to the essential requirements (EHSRs) of the Directive. The Chairperson agreed on the UK comments, with regard to the need of a clear relationship with the EHSRs. It would be a matter of the whole standardisation process, not only for the ESOs but also for all the involved parties. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that the format proposed by the ExNBG was going forward, and the main problem was on the crosses to be placed in the right place on the table of classification of changes in each case, as shown in doc. ATEX_WG/09/2/08 (ExNB/09/347). The format would be used in next publications of standards, as EN Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY provided a report on the last developments, with the adoption by the UNECE WP.6 82 of the Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) of the Sectoral Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments, at the last session in Geneva on 25 November 2009, as a model for legislation in the sector. Such a model would be available for all the UN countries, in particular where there was not a normative framework in the sector. It included a whole life cycle approach with a number of different aspects involved. More information was available on the UNECE WP.6 website; next steps would include comments on CROs, more information from national stakeholders and a new meeting in Berlin in August Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME) said that Industry really appreciated and supported the project, for international trade and the establishment of CROs regulations. FRANCE recalled the need to defend the European legal framework for ATEX. The Chairperson recognized the importance and interest of the work at UNECE, but underlined the principles and values of the European system, taking into special consideration the highest level of safety of equipment. GERMANY added that the adopted CROs were more related to the ATEX product Directive 94/9/EC than the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC; differences were still a sensitive issue. The aim of the work at UNECE WP.6 and the IECEx scheme was to establish clear rules of the game especially for countries without such regulations. 5. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO The NETHERLANDS (ATEX ADCO Chair) reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Brussels on 15 December As usual, discussions had concerned the current market surveillance and safeguard actions by Member States (marking, repair and maintenance of mobile phones), internal organization of the ADCO group (with a new ATEX ADCO logo), certification issues, updates on outstanding issues, updates on the ATEX Guidelines, interfaces with the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC and with the IECEx Scheme for certification. SWEDEN had volunteered for the new ADCO Chair for Full report on the ADCO meeting would be available soon on the relevant folder on CIRCA Series EN Electrical apparatus for explosive gas atmospheres 82 Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6)

226 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 The Chairperson thanked the NETHERLANDS and LUXEMBOURG for the excellent work performed and welcomed SWEDEN as new ATEX ADCO Chair. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant), concerning the use of the Ex mark, remarked that there was no difference between electrical and non-electrical equipment: the hexagon had to be used in all the ATEX equipment, from the origin (see Annex II, 1.0.5). The UNITED KINGDOM mentioned three projects on specific issues related to ATEX certification, on gases and reactive substances. It could be interesting also for other Member States. The NETHERLANDS (ATEX ADCO Chair) thanked the remarks from Mr. Dill, taking into consideration different requirements from standards, and invited him to put forward any relevant information on the issue. SWEDEN confirmed their availability for the next ATEX ADCO Chair and announced that the next ADCO meeting would be held in Stockholm on June Co-operation between Notified Bodies Update of the list of existing NB-Clarification Sheets The Chairperson said that the first written procedure for noting ExNBG Clarification Sheets by the ATEX Standing Committee had been closed on 27 November 2009 on CIRCA 84. Sheets without any comment would be considered as noted and published on the relevant webpage on EUROPA 85. He reaffirmed that only noted Clarification Sheets would be published there, following the same criteria for other Directives. NL Proposal on noting of Clarification Sheets ATEX_WG/09/2/10 The NETHERLANDS introduced a paper with comments to some Clarification Sheets to be noted. According to that, some of them should not be noted, for different formal or substantial problems. GERMANY remarked that some of these CS had not been accepted in the past. The Chairperson thanked the NETHERLANDS for their comments and proposed to go on publishing the noted Clarification Sheets on the ATEX website, and to bilaterally co-operate between the NETHERLANDS and the ExNBG in order to clarify the situation of the CS with comments. This was agreed. Action VII COMM to go on publishing noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets on the ATEX website. NL and ExNBG to co-operate bilaterally on CS mentioned as not to be noted in NL paper. 7. New Legislative Framework: alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Mr. CALVO BASARÁN (COMM) presented the state of play of the alignment process for the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and other New Approach directives with regard to the New Legislative Framework (NLF). He confirmed that the main elements of the Decision 768/2998/EC would be included by an omnibus legal act covering 10 Directives, without any relevant technical changes; but, prior to that, an Impact Assessment should be carried out, as requested by any new legal act

227 XXII. 16 DECEMBER 2009 Such an IA would be an internal exercise, and it would take into consideration different technical and economic aspects of the ATEX sector, in order to assess the consequences of the new configuration of the Directive, in particular with regard to the requirements for economic operators, National Authorities and Notified Bodies. Information for the IA would come from information available from the Commission services (EUROSTAT and others), public databases, stakeholders and also a 1999 study on the ATEX market 86, quite useful as a working basis. POLAND asked for more details on the sources of information for the Impact Assessment study, and pointed out that the 1999 study referred to the old EU-15. AUSTRIA underlined the importance to take into consideration not only big companies, but also SMEs. Mr. CALVO BASARÁN (COMM) confirmed that SMEs would be taken in special consideration in the IA exercise, by using also the SMEs test. The Chairperson said that a draft of the revised/aligned ATEX Directive would be presented at the next Working Group meeting, with the preliminary results of the Impact Assessment. Modification in text would refer to definitions, obligations, possibly modules etc., but not to scope or essential requirements. Mr. MERZ (COMM) referred on the current adaptation of the Noise directives to the NLF, as an example for the current exercise. It would not be an alignment as such by the omnibus legal act, but the most important issues would be related to Notified Bodies, conformity assessment, etc. It would not be really a big impact on SMEs. DENMARK recalled the issue of 5 years for revalidation of certificates and the related impact, as in the Machinery Directive and in other directives. Another important issue would be the safeguard clause procedures and the role of the Commission and Member States on that. The Chairperson confirmed that any comment and suggestion would be taken into consideration, in order to have the same provisions for all the aligned directives into the NLF. Provisions related to Market Surveillance procedures would enter in force with the Regulation 765/2008, as by 1 st January Action VIII COMM to provide an updated report on the issue at the next WG meeting, with a draft of the revised/aligned ATEX Directive, as well as the preliminary results of the Impact Assessment exercise. 8. Any other business No other business. 9. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next meetings of the ATEX Standing Committee and Working Group would take place at the end of June or beginning of July 2010 in Brussels, also taking into consideration that the next ATEX ADCO meeting would be held on June 2010 in Stockholm. Confirmation would be sent via CIRCA and to all the members as soon as possible, according to availability of the Commission premises and facilities. 86 Market description, competitiveness analysis in the field of products and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres - Final Report: 227

228 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 7 July 2010 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr. Joaquín CALVO BASARÁN (COMM ENTR/I4) COMM Participants: Mr. Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr. Bernd MERZ, Ms. Raffaela FRACONFINI (ENTR/I4), Ms. Birgit WEIDEL (ENTR/C1) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. He announced some modifications in the structure with regard to previous meeting, with the point ATEX ADCO placed before Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation questions, and the recuperation of the point related to the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC. Item 8 on New Legislative Framework would be discussed with a representative of the Commission services dealing with the whole alignment exercise, available also for questions. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 16 December 2009 Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 16 December The draft minutes were approved. 3. Update on the ATEX website on EUROPA Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) presented the last developments and updates on the ATEX website on EUROPA 87, after the recent revamping. All the documents had been recovered, 87

229 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 and a set of direct links to the most relevant information available Legislation, Guidance, Standardization, Notified Bodies, Contact points and Market Surveillance authorities, and contact had been added on the mainpage in order to make easier the access to the contents of the website. In particular, for the Guidance documents, more language versions were expected for the ATEX Guidelines Also, as agreed at the last ATEX WG meeting, the consolidated minutes of the meetings of the Working Group of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Standing Committee from 1997 to 2006 had been included on and the updated list of noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been published on SWEDEN appreciated the work on the ATEX website. Concerning the guidance documents and particularly Consideration Papers and Guidelines, they asked to put in evidence the changes between different versions, for example in track changes : it would be very useful for translation purposes, to produce other language versions of guidance documents. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) agreed with the proposal. Specific documents including track changes for new versions of guidance documents would be drafted and uploaded on the website, on the Archive space POLAND announced that they would send a Polish version of the ATEX Guidelines, to make it available on the website. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) thanked POLAND and confirmed that, when received, also the Polish version of the ATEX Guidelines would be uploaded on the specific webpage. Action I COMM to draft and upload on the ATEX website specific documents with the last changes in guidance documents (Guidelines and Consideration Papers). 4. Report by Chair ATEX ADCO SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Stockholm on June An overview on the main points discussed there included market surveillance activities and procedures, political and legal issues, standardisation and technical questions, etc. Full reports on the ADCO meeting including pictures would be available on the relevant folder on CIRCA 88. Specific discussions had regarded the support of the Commission to ADCO activities, and the legal status and use of CE and Ex markings. In particular, they asked CEN to answer to a question regarding the Ex marking ( hexagon ) not required in harmonised standard EN Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) said that they had identified the lack in the marking section of the standard, and at the next plenary meeting, CEN TC 305 would take a resolution to amend the standard and to update that section. For the future, this specific marking should be included also at international level, in IEC standards as well. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) added that the Ex marking was a part of the legal marking, as requested in the Directive and also included in the New Legislative Framework, with markings supplemented by special logos. All standards were not entitled to mention the CE marking, as its use was referred to compliance to all applicable directives. For the Ex marking, it could be added to standards as an appendix to the CE marking, but such inclusion should not be mandatory. The hexagon Ex marking had been invented before the CE marking in the first EN :2009 Non-electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Basic method and requirements 229

230 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 directives, and it has been maintained in the Directive 94/9/EC, being recognized worldwide as a European logo for explosion protection in Europe, as an addendum to the CE marking. It was part of the Directive, with no obligation to be included into harmonised standards: that would be more an issue for legislation. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that CEN and CENELEC had approached the question from different perspectives. The Ex marking has been part of standards from the old approach directives, and with the new ATEX standards the Ex marking had been shown as part of common modification to the normative text of the IEC version. In the latest standards, it was part of Annex ZY, taking out the Ex marking from the normative part of standards and putting it into the informative one. SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) called for a common approach CEN-CENELEC on the issue, to avoid any confusion. The Chairperson and Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the support from the Commission services to the ADCO activities, including the availability of premises and interpretation for meetings in Brussels, CIRCA, translation of documents, etc. For further support as requested by the ADCO members, the Commission recognized the key importance of market surveillance activities, but it would not easy to provide specific resources, for the current serious budget constraints all over Europe. 5. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/06, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_1, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_2, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_3, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_4, ATEX_WG/10/1/06_5 Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the current situation on the text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines, regarding information for repair, maintenance and overhaul of equipment. The Commission services had uploaded a proposal on CIRCA for written discussion, taking into consideration different contributions and remarks from previous discussions. Five comments had been received: from CYPRUS, UNITED KINGDOM, DENMARK, NETHERLANDS and GERMANY. CYPRUS also drafted a merged document with the original version prepared by the Commission and the different comments received. The UNITED KINGDOM presented their comment, suggesting an example related to particularly specialised equipment. GERMANY thought that examples could be useful in this kind of documents, but this one did not fit here, being too specific and it could be misinterpreted. It would be better not including it there. Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME), FRANCE and Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) agreed with GERMANY. SPAIN observed that discussion on the issue was still at the starting point. It would be necessary to come back to the Directive that already established what the manufacturer must do and must provide to the user. It would not be possible to cover all the possible cases, and only obligations of the manufacturer should be taken into consideration, not for users. DENMARK introduced their comments and their revised text proposal. It should be clearly stated that instructions were required to carry out all foreseen maintenance operations, and the importance of safety reasons for repair by the manufacturer himself, with the relevant documentation to be included in the instructions. The NETHERLANDS said that the ATEX Guidelines already stated that not all the technical file should be given to the user. They support the proposal from DENMARK. Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME) underlined that instructions for repair had to remain responsibility of the manufacturer, according to requirements of the Directive. 230

231 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 GERMANY agreed with the DENMARK and the NETHERLANDS. Requirements for manufacturers and for users should be kept distinct. They asked clarification on the last sentence in DK paper: it could be problematic when a manufacturer would be no longer active. DENMARK reaffirmed the intention of not going beyond the Directive. They recognised a possible risk about the information to be provided by the manufacturer, but the most important thing would be the documentation, and there would be different ways to qualify or to authorize repairers: the user could go to one of them, with the relevant documentation. POLAND supported DENMARK, in particular about the need to make a clear distinction between the two ATEX Directives, taking into consideration also other New Approach directives. SPAIN thought that the indication safety reasons was redundant: the manufacturer should draft the instructions, giving clear and objective indications for safety. The NETHERLANDS presented their comments. They asked for a more balanced approach between the role and responsibility of manufacturers and users. GERMANY also presented their comments, suggesting deleting the last sentence on contractual responsibility. They recalled that guidelines could not set any obligation as such, but possible misunderstandings should be avoided. CYPRUS introduced their comments and the merged version of the document. ATEX Guidelines should convey a correct message to manufacturers and users. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) thanked CYPRUS for the effort of taking into consideration the last contributions on the document and considered the merged version a good basis to reach an agreement. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on taking on board the paper for discussion: with some minor corrections, the CY proposal would be submitted to a written procedure on CIRCA from September 2010 onwards, to take a final decision at the next ATEX WG meeting: to approve a final agreed text, or to close the discussion and take apart the proposal for the time being, as the Directive as such already contained the basic provisions about documentation to be provided. This was agreed. Action II COMM to revise the CY merged document and to upload it on CIRCA, as a final proposal submitted to a written procedure from September 2010 onwards, in view of the final decision at the next ATEX WG meeting. Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/03, ATEX_WG/10/1/03 rev. 1 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the papers on marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere: the request for clarification, already presented at the last ATEX WG meeting, and a suggested text for guidance, to be included into the section 11.2 of the ATEX Guidelines. GERMANY pointed out that the note proposed by the UK referred to equipment, but it would be rather a device. It was a good proposal but it could need further clarification: they suggested replacing equipment with product, to avoid possible confusion. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) remarked, concerning terminology, that hazardous area, even frequently used, was not clearly defined in the ATEX Directive. The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with the comments of GERMANY and Mr. Dill: product would be more appropriate than equipment ; and hazardous area would be replaced by potentially explosive atmosphere. The proposed note would be amended accordingly. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31), by the point of view of Notified Bodies advising manufacturers, expressed concerns on the UK text with regard to the examples given in the text and the scope of the ATEX Directive. 231

232 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 The Chairperson confirmed that a new proposal from the UNITED KINGDOM would be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action III UK to submit a new proposal with the note amended as discussed at the meeting. Minimum content for an EC-Type Examination test report Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/04 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper with a proposal to improve section 10.2 of ATEX Guidelines on the minimum level of information to be given in test reports. It would help to clarify the current situation with certain Notified Bodies, according to some UK stakeholders. GERMANY said that the same problem had been discussed with German stakeholders: the question was related to legal relationship between manufacturer and Notified Body, as a legal agreement between private entities with contractual freedom. They agreed on the content to deliver. FRANCE considered that reports were necessary for surveillance procedures and monitoring process, but for the notifying authorities they were already available. The UNITED KINGDOM agreed with GERMANY and FRANCE. Reports were available for surveillance and accreditation authorities. SWEDEN supported the UK proposal, being feasible to get that information. The NETHERLANDS asked whether the question were relevant also for the ATEX Notified Bodies Group (ExNBG), taking into consideration different equipment categories and the relationship between manufacturers and Notified Bodies. Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) said that from the question of test reports had been arisen at the last ExNBG meeting. They had decided that the reports had to be communicated to the customer, but only on customer s request. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) proposed to submit the UK paper to the ExNBG, at their next meeting in November 2010, to ask for their opinion, in order to retake the discussion at the next ATEX WG meeting in December This was agreed. Action IV ExNBG to discuss the UK paper at their next meeting in November 2010, to provide their opinion at the next ATEX WG meeting in December Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/10 GERMANY introduced a discussion paper on electrical trace heating systems, with relevance also for the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC, involving equipment category and zone of application. There was a need for consistency in the language to be used for manufacturers and installers, taking in account the technical conception as well as the practical installation and putting into service operations. They asked standardisers and Notified Bodies for an opinion on the issue. FRANCE asked for some clarification on how to approach the requirement of EC-Type Examination Certificate for this equipment, including tests in line with the relevant standards, and the safety conditions of installation, not part of Directive 94/9/EC but of Directive 1999/92/EC. GERMANY answered that the problem would be with the limits of the directives and the difficulties to establish a dividing line between them. The paper aimed to outline those problems and to propose a specific approach. In this sense, the opinion of the Committee members was requested. 232

233 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) considered the paper as a good description of this kind of equipment and of the way to deal with them, as an example of assembly with the different technical and installation characteristics. It should be further analysed by the most directly interested parties, as standardisers and Notified Bodies, to collect comments and contributions in view of its possible adoption as a Consideration Paper at the next ATEX WG meeting. This was agreed. Action V All in particular CEN, CENELEC and ExNBG to further analyse the DE paper in view of its possible adoption as a Consideration Paper on Electrical trace heating systems at the next ATEX WG meeting in December Automatically lubricating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/11 GERMANY introduced a discussion paper on automatically lubricating systems. The question regarded whether it was electrical or mechanical equipment according to the Directive 94/9/EC: the proposed conclusion was that the automatic lubrication system, and the batteries as an integral part of it, were electrical equipment, category 2. FRANCE shared the opinion of GERMANY. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the paper. It would be considered as a Consideration Paper, to be formally approved by the ATEX Standing Committee and to be published on the ATEX website. Action VI COMM to submit the DE paper to the formal approbation by the ATEX Standing Committee and to publish it on the ATEX website as a Consideration Paper. Mist explosion hazards Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/12 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper with a number of queries to the Committee Members on mist explosion hazards, in order to get more information on the issue, as well as on any current resources as national guidance, research projects, recommendations for protection, etc. GERMANY said that some related information would be available for machinery, in cases of pressure explosions involving plastics, flammable substances, etc. Research had been done by sectors: they would collect this information. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) mentioned some technical guidance on standards and classification of zones for flammable substances and hazards related with mists. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) asked those presents for contributions and comments on the issue, for the next ATEX WG meeting, to be discussed and to decide on the need to draft some specific document. Action VII All to provide contributions and comments on the UK paper and mist explosion hazards, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards 233

234 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 The Chairperson said that the new consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC was just published on the OJEU on 7 July 2010 (see EUROPA website) 90. FRANCE asked for clarification regarding the standard EN : it has been published on , superseding the 2001 version with no transitional period, as the Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard was the same Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) said that normally, transitional periods were shorter for CEN standards than CENELEC standards. According to previous discussions, they would try to extend and to align those periods on a case-by-case basis. The case of this standard was before that decision. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that the publication of new standards with Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard the same day should be avoided as most as possible; but it would depend not only on the standard itself, but also on the technical delay for publication of consolidated lists of harmonised standards on the Official Journal. In this specific case for EN , the Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard would be extended at least 6 months, in the next publication. Action VIII COMM to extend 6 months the Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard for the harmonised standard EN :2009, in the next publication on the OJEU. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/10/01/07 Mr. Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented the report on the activities of his Technical Committee, including general considerations on constitution and organizations, plenary meetings, published European standards and technical reports, program of work and ongoing projects, also at international level. Among them, there was the last information on the procedure for State of the Art, following the chapter 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines, in agreement between CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31. At a meeting in August 2010 in Frankfurt, the question would be followed up towards a final agreement on wording and categorization of changes in new standards. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/10/01/08 Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) presented the report on the activities of his Technical Committee, focused also on the last developments on the State of the Art for new standards, with the Joint Working Group of CENELEC TC 31 and CEN TC 305, and an example to identify the proper nature of difficulties of such a work. Proposed technical changes in standards should be published also in draft standards, with publicly available documents, before the voting phase. International relationships should be also taken into consideration, with the relevant IEC technical committee as well as at the IECEx scheme level: it would be necessary to draft a list of significant changes in new standards. It would be possible to have some conclusive result in December. SWEDEN underlines the positive effects of the ongoing work on the State of the Art also from the point of view of national market surveillance activities in Member States. The Chairperson welcomed the last developments on the issue, to be followed up at the next ATEX WG meeting. 90 Standardization - ATEX: 91 EN :2009 Non-electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Basic method and requirements 234

235 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/10/01/09 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, covering the period between January and June 2010 and including updated information on standards and technical reports assessed and under discussion. Some interesting points regarded standards on industrial trucks in potentially explosive atmospheres, and equipment combined with gas detection instruments: a possible question to the Working Group would be on the scope of existing directives on this equipment, level of safety and consequences on marking. It could be useful to draft a sort of Consideration Paper with a proposed answer to the question: it would be a quite technical question and take some time, but very useful to support the work. Another relevant issue was related to the choice of Harmonised Standards and possible deviations from them: at IEC level there was a guidance document for manufacturers. It would be interesting to deal with this point. Update on substantial changes in the State of the Art and Harmonised Standards See reports by CEN and CENELEC TCs at items Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 and Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the last development of the work carried out at the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 92, in particular on the Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) of the Sectoral Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE), and the last related documents and references. The next session of the Working Party would take place in Geneva on 1-3 November Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) noted that the last version of the presentation on the initiative, from the WP.6 meeting in Stockholm on 10 June 2010, was available on it would be uploaded on CIRCA. 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed that the updated list of noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets by the ATEX Standing Committee had been published on EUROPA 93. The NETHERLANDS said that no progress had been made in the bilateral co-operation with the ExNBG with regard to the Clarification Sheets with pending comments. Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) said that no new Clarification Sheets had been submitted to the Commission services for the noting process. Update on current issues Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) reported on the current work in the ATEX Notified Bodies Group, in particular on updating the definition of substantial modification, also taking into consideration the

236 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 results of the work carried out by CEN and CENELEC. It would be further discussed at the next ExNBG meeting in November SWEDEN introduced a question on Consideration Sheets to be used when a standard would not be available; but when implemented in a standard, should this Consideration Sheet be withdrawn? It would be better to withdraw it, to avoid redundancies in the market with regard to European standards as well as to international standards. Mr. Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that also at international level, Clarification Sheets were sent to the relevant parties in standardisation. Mr. Houeix (ExNBG) answered that Clarification Sheets were used also for interpretation of existing standards, complying with the state of the art for equipment, materials, etc. Normally, Clarification Sheets would be withdrawn when included in standards, when its contents would no longer be maintained. 8. New Legislative Framework: alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/10/01/05 The Chairperson introduced the document with the draft alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework (NLF), in particular the Decision 768/2008/EC. It was submitted to the consideration of the Committee Members for information and transparency, and to collect any comments, remarks and contributions on it, in view of the formal procedures for the alignment package of 10 New Approach directives. In parallel, he recalled that there was a public consultation on the Proposal to align ten product harmonisation directives to Decision 768/2008 within the New Legislative Framework for the marketing of products 94, open until 16 July 2010 (probably to be extended). Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) explained the main contents of the document, according to the key points as explained in the cover, based on the principle of a mere alignment, without any modification to the substantial elements of the current ATEX 94/9/EC Directive, in particular health and safety requirements and conformity assessment modules, as well as some specific definitions, categorizations, etc. Almost the whole text of Annex I to the Decision had been inserted, with some necessary adaptations. After this version of draft alignment (19 May 2010), some details have changed, from internal discussions with the relevant Commission technical and legal services: - in R1, it was proposed the general definition of product, but it would be better to resume the complete definition of equipment, systems and devices ; - in R10, paragraph 3 was removed by mistake; - in Article 8(6) Documents and correspondence relating to the procedures, it should be clarified a possible contradiction to what was said in R2 or R10, regarding the languages required by the Member States; - and other editorial details, as well as the need to reorganize the text with consistent numbering. Any comment, contribution and remark from stakeholders and interested parties would be very welcome, in written form (by etc.) during the same period of the public consultation, in order to reach a complete and robust alignment for the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC in the New Legislative Framework package. The Commission proposal should be ready in the first trimester of 2011 and then it would follow the legislative procedure in the European Council and the European Parliament. POLAND observed a possible legal problem in modules when making reference to a Decision, a legal act not directly in force, but with a national transposition needed. It would be better to include the text itself, to have a consolidated text. They also underlined the need to keep coherence in names and definitions between the current Directive and the text from the Decision

237 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) agreed with the Polish comments: indeed, the reference to the Decision in this draft alignment text have been made just for information purposes, but the final aligned text would be a consolidated one, avoiding external references as most as possible. Also, internal coherence both in structure and contents would be carefully checked. The NETHERLANDS pointed out that the text in R2(6), Manufacturers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark, would be different from the requirements on marking as in Annex II, SPAIN said that for the public consultation, it would be better to have the draft alignment texts for the 10 Directives available. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) clarified that the aim of the public consultation was not on the draft alignment texts as such, but to collect information and contributions for the Impact Assessment associated to the legal act for the alignment package. Not for all 10 Directives draft alignment texts were ready. In any case it would be possible to participate in both ways: answering to the consultation itself, and directly by on the draft alignment texts, when available and presented to the relevant working parties. POLAND asked whether the results of the consultation and the Impact Assessment would be made publicly available. Ms. WEIDEL (COMM) confirmed that the results of the public consultation and the Impact Assessment would be published with the Commission proposal, on the relevant website on EUROPA 95. And, on the consultation: being necessary to have it in five languages more than in English, the period for answers would be extended, at least until the end of August More updated information would be provided as soon as possible. SWEDEN and DENMARK recalled a question discussed at the last ATEX ADCO meeting, on provisions for the enforcement of legal protection for CE marking, but also for the specific Ex ( hexagon ) marking for explosion protection, as defined in Annex II to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. Ms. WEIDEL (COMM) said that specific provisions for Ex marking could be added to R12 Rules and conditions for affixing the CE marking, in particular at the end of point 2. A specific effort at EU level was currently developed to improve the legal status and protection of the CE marking; for the Ex marking, as for other specific markings defined in other directives, it would be more difficult to have something in common. The question could be addressed at national legislation level, through transposition and implementation provisions. GERMANY, DENMARK, Mr. Huhle (ORGALIME) and FRANCE expressed concerns on possible misuse of the Ex marking, and also that national provisions on the Ex marking could lead to differences between Member States and even possible barriers against free circulation. Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) answered that no barriers could be based on the Ex marking, but just possible different consequences regarding its misuse. It could be useful to draft a paper on the situation of the Ex marking, in order to have a common vision on the issue and possible problems and misuse, and proposals for its enforcement in the framework of the alignment exercise, to be shared and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. The Chairperson confirmed that at the next ATEX WG meeting in December 2010, further updates on the alignment exercise would be provided, in view to have the results of the public consultation and the contributions from interested parties, to prepare the final version of the alignment of the ATEX Directive. A specific point would be devoted to the Ex marking and other specific issues. Action IX COMM to follow-up the alignment exercise for an updated report at the next ATEX WG meeting. 95 New Legislative Framework: 237

238 XXIII. 7 JULY 2010 Action X COMM and All, to draft a specific paper on the Ex marking, for a common vision on its use and possible misuse and enforcement, in the framework of the alignment exercise. 9. ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC Mr. GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed that direct contact had been re-established with the persons in charge of the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC in the Commission services, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunities 96. They were in contact with the work and discussions at the ATEX working parties (Standing Committee, Working Group and Administrative Co-operation) also via CIRCA, and they would participate to the next meetings to be held in Brussels in December 2010, in order to share ideas and contributions for a better common work. In this sense, the Commission services would draft a list of open issues of common interest between the two ATEX Directives from interface issues to crossed references into guidance documents, to be followed up and discussed together at the next relevant working parties meetings. This was agreed. Action XI COMM to draft a list of open issues of common interest between the two ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC, to be discussed at the next relevant working party meetings. 10. Any other business No other business. 11. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group would take place in December 2010 in Brussels, as usual the day after the next ATEX ADCO meeting also in Brussels. Possible suitable dates would be found in the second week of the month (Monday 6 - Friday 10), according to the availability of the Commission premises and interpretation services. Confirmation would be sent via CIRCA and to all the Committee Members as soon as possible. 96 DG EMPL - Health and Safety at Work: 238

239 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL New Approach Industries, Tourism & CSR Mechanical, Electrical and Telecomm Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 21 January 2011 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/G4) COMM Participants: Mr Bernd MERZ, Ms Raffaela FRACONFINI (ENTR/G4), Ms Birgit WEIDEL (ENTR/C1) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COMM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/01 rev. 3 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. He said that item 8 regarding the New Legislative Framework would be developed during the morning session, with a representative of the Commission services dealing with the NLF alignment exercise. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 7 July 2010 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 7 July The draft minutes were approved. 3. Update on the ATEX website on EUROPA The Chairperson presented the last developments and updates on the ATEX website on EUROPA with special attention to: - Guidance documents a List of updates had been uploaded, according to Action point I of the last ATEX WG meeting. Also, an Italian version of the ATEX Guidelines (Third Edition - June 2009) was now 97

240 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 available 98, for information purpose only; and the Consideration Paper on Automatically lubricating systems had been published, according to Action point VI. - Standardisation: the last consolidated list of Harmonised Standards (17 September 2010) had been published, including the extension of the Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard for EN : , according to Action point VIII. - Management of the Directive the Procedural guidelines for Market Surveillance proposed by Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt had been published in its original German version 100 and in an English translation 101 elaborated by the Commission services. POLAND said that the Polish version of the ATEX Guidelines would be sent to the Commission in 3-4 weeks, to be made available on the ATEX website. 4. ATEX ADCO - Administrative Co-operation SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) reported on the last ADCO meeting held in Brussels on 20 January An overview on the main points discussed there included market surveillance activities and procedures, technical and legal issues, standardisation, etc. Full reports on the ADCO meeting would be available on the relevant folder on CIRCA 102. An updated version of the ATEX Borderline list had been introduced at the ADCO meeting. SWEDEN would send it to the Commission in order to be discussed by the Working Group at the next meeting. Action I SE to send the updated ATEX Borderline list, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. SWEDEN (ATEX ADCO Chair) also said that the question regarding market surveillance on vacuum cleaners had been discussed at the ADCO meeting, with the proposal to reach an agreement on a single answer to provide to the inquiring manufacturer. Mr Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant), on vacuum cleaners, said that the question involved several aspects with manufacturers and the market, work environment in Zone 22 and standardisation: in fact, the basic problem would be related to existing standards dealing with the issue but not harmonised in the EU, as for example IEC/EN standards, and providing not the same level of safety as harmonized standards. Those specific electrical standards were made for household and similar appliances, with a specific part for industrial vacuum cleaners, but, in potentially explosive atmospheres, dust could be a hazard under different aspects (explosion protection and health protection against risks by wood dust and other dangerous dusts): in this sense he mentioned an old German document related to explosion protection in zone 22 for a vacuum cleaner. The requirements laid down in European legislation for vacuum cleaners were difficult to comply with the existing harmonised standards, so manufacturers used not-harmonised standards. In any case, the applicable rules were quite clear, as stated in the Blue Guide for the New Approach: manufacturers had to ensure safety for their products by fulfilling the essential requirements of the Directive. There were different opinions on safety, with several expertise contributions and developments in working groups, but the results were still weak, also at IEC level in TC 31 for electrical standards in explosive atmospheres. The question was mentioned also in the CEN/CENELEC Consultant Report, to be introduced later. According to Mr Dill's opinion, Member EN :2009 Non-electrical equipment for use in potentially explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Basic method and requirements

241 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 States should make all possible efforts in standardisation work for vacuum cleaners to have adequate harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive. 5. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation questions Clarification to EHSR 1.0.6(c) and chapter of the ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/03 The Chairperson recalled the current situation on the text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines, regarding information for repair, maintenance and overhaul of equipment, after the last ATEX WG meeting and the Action point II. The revised merged document proposed by CYPRUS had been submitted to a written procedure for approbation on CIRCA until 12 October 2010: there was a general agreement but on a specific sentence proposed by the UNITED KINGDOM there were the opposition of ORGALIME and doubts by other Member States: However, where necessary, for example with particularly specialised equipment, the manufacturer can include. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) confirmed his objection against that sentence, because it would not neither provide added value nor enhanced clarity; on the contrary, it could give reason for new discussion on the meaning of specialised equipment. FRANCE agreed with the objection of ORGALIME. The sentence could create confusion in the text. The NETHERLAND said that discussions with end-users seemed oriented to support such sentence, but they would support the text also without it. The UNITED KINGDOM explained that it would be just an example, to try to clarify the paragraph on repair, by the original manufacturer or by somebody else. GERMANY also thought that the additional sentence was not necessary. Very specific examples had been mentioned in earlier documents, it would be better to delete it. The Chairperson proposed to approve the paper without the text added, to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines, and to be formally approved at the next ATEX Standing Committee meeting. Later on, more specific examples could be provided in order to better clarify the point, if considered necessary. This was agreed. Action II COMM to insert into the ATEX Guidelines and 7.1 the text as approved. To be formally confirmed at the ATEX Standing Committee meeting in July Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/10 The Chairperson recalled that, after discussion at the last ATEX WG meetings and according to Action point III, the UNITED KINGDOM had to submit a new amended proposal. The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, taking on board some comments from the CEN/CENELEC Consultant, with a proposal of text to be added to the ATEX Guidelines. Mr Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) thought that the issue should be carefully checked before to proceed. It could not apply to equipment where there would be machinery inside in potentially explosive atmospheres with own ignition sources: in this sense, ATEX applied and some marking would be needed. There were so different situations and devices regarding the need to provide protection against explosion hazards: any possible additional misunderstanding should be avoided. 241

242 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 The UNITED KINGDOM said that the idea under the proposal was to provide some clarification, making references to sections and of the ATEX Guidelines, in particular regarding marking. The Chairperson suggested that it would be useful to have more time to check the possible impact of the text proposed for the ATEX Guidelines with regard the consideration of different cases of equipment with internal explosive atmosphere. The issue would be further discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action III ALL to check the impact of the text proposed for the ATEX Guidelines, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Minimum content for an EC-Type Examination test report Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/04 The Chairperson recalled that, after discussion at the last ATEX WG meeting and according to Action point IV, the ExNBG had to discuss the paper submitted by the UNITED KINGDOM at their next meeting, to provide their opinion. Mr Thedens (ExNBG) said that the question had been discussed at previous meetings, and again at the meeting on November The results had been reproduced in a paper, currently under a consultation process: it would be available probably in February Most of the element of the UK paper would be included in that paper. The paper would be sent to the Committee as soon as possible. The Chairperson confirmed that the paper, when available, would be considered at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action IV ExNBG to provide a paper with the results of their ongoing discussion on the issue, to be considered at the next ATEX WG meeting. Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/10 rev. 1 The Chairperson recalled that, after discussion at the last ATEX WG meeting and according to Action point V, all the Working Group Members in particular CEN, CENELEC and ExNBG had to further analyse the paper submitted by GERMANY. GERMANY introduced a revised version of the paper, with an improved consistency of language with standards. It was a quite complex subject but the paper could be useful to provide information on the different aspects involved with regard to the treatment according to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC as well as 1999/92/EC. The UNITED KINGDOM expressed their support to the DE paper. FINLAND also supported the paper, but they proposed to remove the paragraph The installation and putting into service is only permitted or a similarity authorized, as they did not consider appropriate taking into consideration different national requirements related to installation operations. GERMANY said that they were aware that different requirements could be present in Member States. But the purpose of the paragraph was to ensure that installation and putting into service could be made only by qualified people, not by everybody. In any case, it could be useful to look into current rules in different countries, with the cooperation of the Member States, for the next meeting. FRANCE asked for clarification on the aim of the German document: to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines, or as interpretation paper. They also considered the technical pertinence of the content, 242

243 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 with particular importance given to installation: it could be problematic to take the same approach for all under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC within its scope, as it should go beyond the scope. The Chairperson said that the discussion on the paper was in view of its possible adoption as a Consideration Paper on Electrical trace heating systems. GERMANY clarified that the paper had been drafted to answer to questions coming from interested parties, as they wanted to ensure, in this very complex issue, the way to cover this kind of equipment in its different operative aspects, including the point regarding properly qualified people to install it and to provide service. This was the background from years of discussions with manufactures, notified bodies etc. The Chairperson summarised the discussion asking all the members to send contributions to GERMANY in order to reach an agreement at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action V ALL to send contributions to DE to reach an agreement at the next ATEX WG meeting. Mist explosion hazards Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/12 The Chairperson recalled that, after discussion at the last ATEX WG meeting and according to Action point VII, all the Working Group Members had to provide contributions and comments on the paper submitted by the UNITED KINGDOM for further discussion. The UNITED KINGDOM said that no replies had been received. GERMANY expressed some comments, asking for any existing research in the area. They could make available some information in German. The UNITED KINGDOM confirmed that there was research on the subject also from UK Health and Safety authorities, and some guidance had been prepared, on classification zones, selection of equipment, etc. Several companies had been involved there. If any other information would be available, it would be forwarded to researchers. FRANCE also said that they could provide elements on the subject, from experiences in France. The Chairperson thanked for those contributions and asked GERMANY and FRANCE to send their available information to the UNITED KINGDOM. The UNITED KINGDOM would report on the current stage of the project at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action VI DE and FR to send information and contributions to UK. UK to report at the next ATEX WG meeting. PED equipment under 94/9/EC: request for clarification Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/09 Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) introduced a paper on a requirement set by Italian users to declare PED 103 equipment not having ignition sources itself to be certified according the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. SWEDEN mentioned that the paper had been submitted also at the last ATEX ADCO meeting. The question should be further considered to better clarify it. The UNITED KINGDOM added that the position stated in the ORGALIME paper might imply different interpretations of hot surfaces in potentially explosive atmospheres. It had been agreed to 103 Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC See also ATEX Guidelines

244 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 look into the question again, to draft a more extended and clearer paper: it would be necessary to be careful. GERMANY confirmed that they would directly contact ORGALIME to work together towards a clearer draft on the question, to prevent any possible misinterpretation. Action VII ORGALIME and DE to redraft the paper, to prevent possible misinterpretations. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson said that the latest consolidated list of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 17 September 2010 (see the EUROPA website) 104. A new list has been sent for publication in January and it should available in incoming days. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/11 The Chairperson noted the absence of the representative of CEN TC 305 and briefly presented the content of the report on the activities of this Technical Committee, available on CIRCA. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/01/08 The Chairperson noted the absence of the representative of CENELEC TC 31 and briefly presented the content of the report on the activities of this Technical Committee, available on CIRCA. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/07 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his report, covering the period July-December Among the standardisation activities, specific points regarded draft standards on vacuum cleaners, special protection 's', internal combustion engines and trucks. Update on substantial changes in the State of the Art and Harmonised Standards The Chairperson recalled that in the report on the activities of CENELEC TC 31, there was an update on the ongoing discussion on the State of the Art, with a document out for vote by National Committees, until 28 February Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) expressed his support to the proposed draft, as useful to deal with expectations. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE

245 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 GERMANY reported on the activities of the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6), making reference to the last meeting of the Sectoral Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEE), held in Berlin on 1 September 2010: a presentation had been offered there by Mr Lienesch, with an overview on the current situation. The annual session of the Working Party had been held in Geneva on 1-2 November There was no further information at this stage of the project, after the definition of the programme and objectives (CROs), as indicated in the relevant website Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee The Chairperson confirmed that the updated list of noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets by the ATEX Standing Committee was available on EUROPA 106. The ExNBG Technical Secretariat has communicated that, according to the result of the 14 th meeting held in November 2010, the valid Clarification Sheets of ExNB have been published at the website Update on current issues Mr Thedens (ExNBG) had no specific update on discussions under way on issues of common interest with the Standing Committee. No progress had been made on Clarification Sheets under discussion with the NETHERLANDS with pending comments. 8. New Legislative Framework: alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/05 The Chairperson introduced the latest available version January 2011 of the draft alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 107, in particular the Decision 768/2008/EC. It was presented for information to the Committee Members, and to provide an update on pending issues. In particular, with regard to the previous version presented in July 2010, among other elements, obligations for economic operators only applicable to consumer products had been removed, and a reference to the specific marking on explosion protection had been added to the main text of the Directive, alongside to the CE marking in Article R12. BELGIUM asked for the planning of the alignment exercise for the 10 directives, and the availability of their new texts, with regard also to the next steps in the European Parliament and the Council. How would the final texts look like? The UNITED KINGDOM inquired on the possibility to express further comments on the latest draft version. GERMANY pointed out the large number of amendment in the draft aligned directive from the Decision, and remarked the need to update the ATEX Guidelines accordingly, asking for the timeframe for such action. The Chairperson said that in principle it would not possible to take on board further comments. On the other hand, the question of the new ATEX Guidelines would be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting, having the final text of the draft aligned Directive. A new structure for the Guidelines could be proposed: it would be similar to the one used in the new Machinery Guide, with comments New Legislative Framework: 245

246 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 on the text of the Directive. A specific working plan would be proposed, to involve also the interested Committee Members. FRANCE asked for clarification on what time would be allocated to Member States to enforce the new Directive, and on other issues such as the treatment of Declarations of Conformity, certificates and so on, in particular whether a transitional period would be foreseen. POLAND remarked that a number of articles of the Decision had not been included in the draft aligned Directive, for some specific cases of products. Ms Weidel (European Commission), from the Unit in charge of the alignment exercise, reported on the current situation, to provide as much as possible an answer to the questions raised by the Member States. There were several technical, policy and procedure issues involved in the process. The Commission services would present 10 independent proposals at the same time in the common framework of the Commission Proposal, including the ATEX Directive, to be submitted and negotiated with the European Parliament and the Council. So, not a single text, but 10 texts, each of them to be published as a new directive at the end. A Communication would be also sent, to explain that those 10 texts would be part of a coherent package, to be analysed by the Parliament and the Council as a whole. The exercise included discussion with the 10 texts and their details to solve horizontal and specific problems in drafting issues: it was not just a copy-paste operation, as it was necessary to ensure consistence. The work was quite advanced and any possible further contributions should arrive very soon. For the Impact Assessment to accompany the package, internal procedures of checks were under way, to submit it to the IA Board in April 2011 and to be able to launch the inter-service consultation with the other Directorates-General of the Commission potentially interested, in May. The following step would be the presentation of the Commission Proposal adopted, by the end of June or beginning of July, and then it would be transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council in the second half of the year The changes had been made to avoid any problem in negotiation, hoping to get a very positive scenario of one year of negotiation, towards publication of the new texts by the end of Transitional period could be maybe 2 years as a realistic period to suggest, so it would be until the end of It would be still some time to adopt revised guidance documents, as well as the Blue Guide for the horizontal nature of the exercise, in time before applicability of the new directives. It would be discussed also with the stakeholders. For certificates, new provisions would be applicable after entering in force the new directives, so the old certificates would remain valid until that date. It would be checked the possible need to re-notify conformity assessment bodies, for Notified Bodies from the date of applicability, ready to issue certificates under the new directives. About the definition of EC or EU Type-examination certificates, according to the Lisbon Treaty we had no longer European Community but European Union : it would be just a formal linguistic change, with no reason to refuse certificates on these bases. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) expressed his appreciation for being the change EC/EU just formal: it would be very important for having no impact or economic consequences. A manufacturer should not ask a Notified Body to re-issue a certificate for that. Another question would concern the numbering of directives: if the codification would change, it could have impact on harmonised standards, as occurred in the new Machinery Directive, with a huge work to revise the whole set of standards. It would lead to a significant economic impact and enormous workload for Technical Committees and the Consultant himself, just for a formal/editorial change. He hoped that the Commission could find a way to avoid the need to immediately adapt all the existing standards. Ms Weidel (European Commission) answered that it would not possible to avoid having new numbering for the aligned directives. It would be a recast with the benefits of a revision of the whole directive with several changes involved, also by a legal point of view, to get a consistent text with a new number. The Commission services would remain in contact with CEN and CENELEC to manage the workload with the compromise of not immediately revise all the standards, as there would be no substantial changes in scope, in essential requirements and in conformity assessment procedures. Regarding the presumption of conformity, the new directive would include a 246

247 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 statement to consider that any reference to the old directive should be read as to the new one. So, revision would not an immediate exercise. The Chairperson mentioned the example of the recast of the Low Voltage Directive 2006/95/EC (from the old 73/23/EC), when there was no need of specific work for adaptation of standards. The UNITED KINGDOM observed that in any case, standards would be normally revised on an average basis of 5-year period, so also formal adaptation would be taken on board in that moment. FRANCE asked for the need to issue new type certificates for products, when the new directive would be enter in force. Could it be possible an addition to the old certificate to adapt it, or would a new certificate be needed? Ms Weidel (European Commission) said that, as a general principle, the manufacturer should revise the product when change in production occurred, so with a new certificate, unless such changes could be considered as minor. It would be an issue of negotiation between manufacturers and Notified Bodies: adaptation to the new directive would not be needed only without any substantial changes, other than for example the reference, labelling etc. When the new directive would become applicable, any product on market should be in conformity with the new directive, and new EU-Type Certificates would be issued; but for the existing ones, they should be revised but not under the full procedure, according to a specific negotiation between the manufacturer and the Notified Body. For that, there would be the 2 year transitional period. ITALY thought that the idea of negotiation between manufacturer and Notified Body would not be correct: an official and uniform interpretation would be needed, to avoid different results in similar cases, with consequences of uncertainty and distortion to free circulation on the market. The Chairperson said that, on the basis of general principles exposed, the Commission services would provide for reference indications and practical guidelines to prevent any misunderstandings and distortions in the application of the new directive, when available. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) appreciated the availability of specific rules for the transitional period, as made for the new directives concerning Machinery or Low Voltage. For the ATEX Directive, the question could be even more delicate, for having more procedures involving Notified Bodies and certificates. The Chairperson confirmed that all the necessary would be done to prevent distortions and discriminations, also on the basis of previous similar experiences in other directives, such as the new Toys Directive 2009/48/EC. Further report and update on the situation would be given at the next ATEX WG meeting. Ex Marking in the New Legislative Framework for ATEX Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/06 The Chairperson, according to Action point X from the last ATEX WG meeting, introduced a paper on the Ex-hexagon marking, drafted to provide a common vision on its use and possible misuse and enforcement, in the framework of the alignment exercise for the ATEX Directive. GERMANY pointed out some minor changes to be made at point 4 of the paper and others, in particular concerning components. FRANCE suggested checking the terminology use to indicate the Ex-hexagon marking. In international sense, the Ex marking as such was a standard mark (for example the sign within a triangle), different from the Ex-hexagon as European specific marking of explosion protection to be considered as a regulatory marking, as defined in the directive. Here, it would be necessary to use one single term, for instance ATEX marking, to be clearer. In fact, similar marking were used also by the USA and China for international trade; but in Europe, there was the specific Ex-hexagon marking. DENMARK mentioned the short discussion on the issue, carried out at the ATEX ADCO meeting, in particular regarding the use of the Ex-hexagon mark also for product outside the scope of the directive. It was concluded that National Authorities in charge of market surveillance should be vigilant to prevent this kind of misuse of the marking. 247

248 XXIV. 21 JANUARY 2011 Action VIII COMM to redraft the specific paper on the Ex marking, taking into consideration suggestions and remarks expressed at the meeting. 9. ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/04 The Chairperson, according to Action point XI from the last ATEX WG meeting, introduced a list of open issues of common interest between the two ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC, as a basis for specific discussion. The person in charge of Directive 1999/92/EC at Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunities 108, Mr Georges Herbillon, was not present for last-minute internal requirements, but he would join the next meeting in July 2011: there, the list would be re-proposed and discussed. Action IX COMM to re-propose the list of open issues of common interest between the ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. 10. Any other business Mobile Phone case GERMANY briefly reported on a case regarding a Mobile Phone that, at the end of 2009, had been found on the German market not in compliance with the requirement of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to be used in potentially explosive atmospheres. In fact, it has been placed on the market as Category 2 equipment but it had not really the necessary level of safety. The question had been raised already at the last ATEX ADCO meeting; German authorities would send communications to the company and other interested party, as well as to the Commission and the Member States, to validate their action and to ask for an opinion, in view of a possible Safeguard Clause action. The Chairperson confirmed that the question would be followed up at the next ATEX WG meeting. 11. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group would take place on beginning of July 2011 in Brussels. 108 DG EMPL - Health and Safety at Work: 248

249 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Chemicals, metals, mechanical, electrical and construction industries; Raw materials Mechanical, Electrical and Telecom Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 1 st July 2011 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr Luis Filipe GIRÃO (COMM ENTR/G4) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr Bernd MERZ, Ms Elzbieta PAPRZYCKA (ENTR/G4); Mr Georges HERBILLON (EMPL/B3) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced himself, Mr Luis Filipe Girão, as the new Head of Unit G4 "Mechanical, Electrical and Telecom Equipment" in charge also of the ATEX sector, among others. He also introduced the other European Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda, proposing some slight changes: the update on the alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework would be presented right after the first point on the Agenda; the point dealing with interfaces with the ATEX "workplace" Directive with the DG EMPL representative (item 9) would be discussed after item 5 at the end of the morning session. With these changes, the draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 21 January 2011 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 21 January Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) went through the Action Points from the last meeting, confirming their current status: completed or to be discussed at the current meeting. The draft minutes were approved. 3. Update on the ATEX website on EUROPA

250 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) presented the latest developments and updates on the ATEX website on EUROPA 109, by highlighting in particular the publication of the updated version of the ATEX Guidelines 110 as "Update May 2011" of the "Third Edition - June 2009", including the text inserted into and 7.1, as well as some editorial changes, as indicated in the new "List of updates " 111. Also, a new consolidated list of Harmonised Standards had been published on 8 June ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation SWEDEN (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the last Administrative Co-operation group meeting held in Malmö (Sweden) on June As usual, the main points discussed had included market surveillance activities and procedures, technical and legal issues, standardisation, etc. Full reports on the AdCo meeting would be available on CIRCA 113. In particular, the draft report on the "Joint cross-border market surveillance campaign 2010" had been presented, asking for comments, and a paper on "The form of instructions" had been discussed: it suggested to add a text to the ATEX Guidelines, taking into consideration the provisions of guidance documents for the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC and Low Voltage Directive 2006/95/EC. In this sense, instructions should be provided in paper form, but also electronic form would be useful. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) underlined the need to ensure continuous availability and clear understanding of instructions in local languages. It would be difficult to agree on no-paper instructions, especially in petrol stations and other similar installations. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (European Commission) said that the paper on "The form of the instructions" would be presented and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting, and asked for contributions and comments. Action I COMM to table the ATEX AdCo paper on "The form of the instruction" on the Agenda of the next ATEX WG meeting, to be discussed. 5. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation and application questions Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/10 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recalled that, after discussion at the last ATEX WG meetings and according to Action point III, the Committee members had to check the possible impact of the new proposal from the UNITED KINGDOM for the ATEX Guidelines, with regard the consideration of different cases of equipment with internal explosive atmospheres. The UNITED KINGDOM confirmed the aim of the paper, to improve clarity on the use of ATEX marking for concerned products. No further comments had been provided since the last meeting. The NETHERLANDS said that they did not recognize the problem. The explanation was rather technical, so they suggested having a direct bilateral meeting with the UNITED KINGDOM

251 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) noted the agreement of the UNITED KINGDOM on a bilateral meeting on the issue. It would be reported at the next ATEX WG meeting, possibly with a revised text to take a decision on it. Action II NL and UK to discuss the issue bilaterally and to report at the next ATEX WG meeting. Minimum content for an EC-Type Examination test report Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/04, ATEX_WG/11/2/06 (ExNB/11/400/CS) Mr Houeix (ExNBG) introduced the Clarification Sheet ExNB/11/400/CS, formally approved in June 2011, with the position of the Coordination of Notified Bodies on "Content of an European standardised ATEX Test Report", as agreed as the end of their discussion. Most of the elements of the paper proposed by the UNITED KINGDOM had been included. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) proposed to open a notification process by the ATEX Standing Committee for this Consideration Sheet. The UNITED KINGDOM thought that it was a good and very useful document, identifying the needs for a standardised assessment report format, with clear contents and taking into consideration different situations to issue a full report, etc. The NETHERLANDS agreed on considering the Consideration Sheet a very good paper. They mentioned a possible horizontal problem with Conformity Assessment Bodies in the Directives within the New Legislative Framework, in particular regarding the scope of accreditation of Notified Bodies. They proposed to send the paper to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation (SOGS) to ask for their opinion. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) considered very useful to have a common format for test reports for all Notified Bodies, as those documents were very important for the approval of products. He thanked the Coordination of Notified Bodies for such a work. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) proposed to proceed with the Consideration Sheets on three lines: submit it to the noting process by the ATEX Standing Committee on CIRCA, to have it published on the EUROPA website; to send it to the SOGS, to ask for their opinion regarding the New Legislative Framework; and to make a proposal to include its contents into the ATEX Guidelines. This was approved. Action III COMM to submit the Clarification Sheet to the noting process by the ATEX Standing Committee on CIRCA. COMM to send the Clarification Sheet to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation (SOGS) to ask for their opinion. COMM to make a proposal to include the contents of the Clarification Sheet into the ATEX Guidelines. Filter units and vented silo bins - Precision Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/07 GERMANY introduced the paper to improve precision in the Consideration Paper on "Filter Units and Vented Silo bins", as published on the ATEX website 114. At point 5), they proposed to replace

252 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 "only" with "generally", and in case a), "if the manufacturer" should be replaced by "if another manufacturer". The NETHERLANDS thought that such changes could cause commotion in large industrial environments, with different installations and assemblies. The application of ATEX Directive 94/9/EC also to silos in that case, with Declaration of Conformity, would increase costs. They proposed to limit the scope to assemblies. Mr Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) considered that in this case the use of a word or another might have big influence on people dealing with installations, as for silos installed in place. The NETHERLANDS remarked that installations and assemblies would represent different questions, involving components with specific procedures and documents for concerned economic operators. Advice of experts would be needed. GERMANY said that the question on installations and assembles would be a long time problem: another kind of discussion not raised by their proposal for just some formal changes, in order to improve clarity. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) mentioned other installations in industrial environments as in petrol sector and big refineries, including ATEX components with different aspects related to maintenance and renewal, costs, etc. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) proposed to approve the formal changes proposed by GERMANY to the Consideration Paper. This was approved. Action IV COMM to update the Consideration Paper on "Application of the directive 94/9/EC to Filter Units and Vented Silo bins" with the modifications suggested by GERMANY. Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/10 rev. 2 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recalled the need to reach an agreement on the Discussion Paper from the last ATEX WG meeting, by integrating remarks and contributions from the Committee members. A bilateral discussion by had taken place between GERMANY and FINLAND and a new version of the paper was available. GERMANY said that it was very difficult to deal with this type of equipment, being a good example of assembly. The content of the paper had been improved, also with regard to consistency with text from standards, working together with FINLAND: they wanted to be sure that the paper would not undermine national provisions of Member States on installations. This version was now submitted to the Committee, to be approved as Consideration Paper. The NETHERLANDS agreed on the paper. They just suggested deleting or replacing the sentence at page 3, 6 th paragraph, 1.: "The subcontractor has to meet the skills/qualifications as defined in the descriptive documents referred to in the EC type examination certificate." Mr Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) recommended being very careful with that. The comment from the NETHERLANDS referred to general standards for installations, but the problem was more specific: installers needed special knowledge about the product, based on information that was not generally available, but only from the manufacturer. So, it could be problematic to have a reference to "knowledge" on product. GERMANY agreed on the specificity of installations and related knowledge, but considered that the paper as it was could be one useful step forward on this equipment. FRANCE supported the German proposal as presented in the document. 252

253 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that, from a standardisation point of view (as the standard on installations, EN part ), it would be preferable to stay with the German text. DENMARK also supported the German proposal. Concerning the mentioned standard, it would be more related to national legislations, on what national authorities should require to installers, also with the relevant national regulations. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) noted a general agreement on the paper and suggested approving it as a first step on the matter, for any possible further improvement. The document would be formally approved at the next ATEX Standing Committee meeting and uploaded as Consideration Paper on the ATEX website. This was approved. Action V COMM to upload the approved document as Consideration Paper on "Electrical trace heating systems" on the ATEX website. Mist explosion hazards Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/12 The UNITED KINGDOM reported on the situation of projects on mist explosion hazards, carried out by safety laboratories to improve the level of standards on the issue. Comments had been received from FRANCE and GERMANY, to be shared with those laboratories. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) thanked the UNITED KINGDOM and asked them to report back to the next ATEX WG meeting if any further information on the issue would be available. Action VI UK to report at the next ATEX WG meeting, if any further information would be available. PED equipment under 94/9/EC: request for clarification Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/09 rev. 2 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recalled that ORGALIME and GERMANY had agreed to submit a re-drafted paper on PED 116 equipment under 94/9/EC, to prevent any possible misinterpretations. When approved, the result could be made available as a Consideration Paper or directly included into the ATEX Guidelines. Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) agreed on the possibility to take on board the paper into the ATEX Guidelines. The UNITED KINGDOM underlined the need to have guidance to handle with the PED representatives. The NETHERLANDS agreed with the conclusions, but required more perspective on that, in particular on the health and safety requirements in both Directives and on test compliance. They suggested adding an introduction to the paper, to help to reach an agreement by showing the background. GERMANY clarified that the proposal would deal just with individual pieces and not to regulate assemblies, under the 94/9/EC Directive: just starting with this simple case. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) said that standards could be applicable also in this case, between ATEX and PED. 115 EN :2008 Explosive atmospheres - Part 14: Electrical installations design, selection and erection 116 Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC (PED) See also ATEX Guidelines

254 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) said that the text already included a description of the question, focused on a simple case, as an example. It would not possible to cover any possible devices in a paper. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) proposed to include into the ATEX Guidelines 6.6 some text from the paper. SWEDEN said that it would be necessary to check the text, to avoid repetitions of contents in different paragraphs for PED as for other Directives mentioned in the ATEX Guidelines. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) agreed with SWEDEN. More explanations would be needed, not just focusing in a specific case. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that a proposal would be drafted, for a smooth insertion into the ATEX Guidelines. Action VII COMM to draft a proposal for text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines regarding PED, on the basis of the ORGALIME-GERMANY paper. Update of the Borderline list - ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/05 SWEDEN introduced an updated version of the "Borderline list - ATEX products", as presented at the last ATEX AdCo meeting. With regard to the current version available on the ATEX website 117, changes had been proposed in some items of equipment, components and other products. POLAND pointed out the need to update "Note 1" with the latest available edition of the ATEX Guidelines. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) asked for clarification on the changes proposed for earthing clamps, the reason to exclude them from the scope. He would send to SWEDEN a written comment on that. The NETHERLANDS remarked that the reference to "Chapter 3.11" for automatic lubrication systems should be corrected, and also asked for better clarification on fire extinguishers. The UNITED KINGDOM mentioned a question received by industry, about a fridge in a laboratory, with potentially explosive atmospheres in elements contained there. They proposed to add an item on the list regarding "inner fridges". Mr Cloutier (CECOD) considered that for gasoline pumps, electrical pumps and their interface products, there were different aspects related to control of static discharges, grounding of vehicles, risk assessment and possible accidents. Some of those aspects could be also included in the list. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) invited all the Committee members to send their contributions and suggestions to SWEDEN to further improve the list. A corrected and updated version would be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action VIII ALL to send contributions to SWEDEN to draft a corrected and updated version of the list, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/11, ATEX_WG/11/2/11_1 IRELAND introduced the paper with the proposed rewording of ATEX Guidelines There were different inputs and reasons for that, in particular in the examples, in order to make the text

255 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 clearer. Some help would come from the standard EN 50495: , also including contributions from other Member States in the Administrative Co-operation group. Mr Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his written comments to the proposal, with two points. The first one would preserve the terminology, when the second one appreciated the inclusion of the example for motors with variable speed drives. GERMANY could support the Irish proposal to improve the practical implementation of Article 1.2, but they should need a further look to the text, to make the wording clearer with regard to the mentioned harmonised standard. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) thanked all the contributions to improve the text and reported the discussion to the next ATEX WG meeting, with a new proposal taking into consideration the remarks from Mr Dill, GERMANY and other Committee members. Action IX IRELAND to submit a revised text at the next ATEX WG meeting, taking into consideration the remarks from Mr Dill, GERMANY and other Committee members. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/12 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the paper, explaining the problem and proposing a solution. It could be added to the ATEX Guidelines, or a specific Consideration Paper could be created. FRANCE considered that some additions regarding EC-Type examination by a trade agent would be necessary, including links between the quality systems used by different Notified Bodies. GERMANY had a look to some examples in Germany but they had not understood the issue completely. There was already a link between trade agents, and manufacturers did not necessarily have a trader selling a product. A solution could make reference to retailers. The NETHERLANDS considered the document very important, addressing a relevant horizontal problem. They suggested putting it forward to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation (SOGS), to share it also with other interested sectors. Mr Houeix (ExNBG) added some precisions to the issue, in terms of systems and "original" company. The involved relationships would work as subcontracting and it should be taken into account in quality systems, in the name of trade agents. When trade agents would place the product on the market, related subcontracted conditions and activities should be clear. Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) thought that the issue had been already discussed in the ATEX Guidelines, or included in a previous edition of FAQ's. It should be checked. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) agreed on transmitting the paper to the SOGS, and asked all the Committee members to express their comments and contributions to develop the discussion at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action X COMM to transmit the paper on "Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents" to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation (SOGS). ALL to send comments and contributions on the issue for the next ATEX WG meeting. Safeguard clause on Mobile Phone: update Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that the Commission services had received the official communication and related documents from the German authorities. The Safeguard Procedure had been launched and letters had been sent to the manufacturer and the Notified Body, in order to ask for any further comment from them. No answer had been received; in any case the question 118 EN 50495:2010 Safety devices required for the safe functioning of equipment with respect to explosion risks 255

256 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 appeared quite clear and the relevant Commission Decision would be drafted and published at the shortest delay. GERMANY had no further news on the issue. They had just remarked that the product was still sold via Internet, from Singapore. Such "re-import" in this way should be avoided. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 4 February 2011 and on 8 June 2011, as indicated on the relevant EUROPA website 119. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/08 Mr Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented his written report. He draw the attention in particular to point 4.2 with the "List of all documents published by CEN/TC 305": among them, the standards dealing with basic concepts and methodology on explosion prevention and protection in potentially explosive atmospheres, and the standard EN ISO/IEC on quality systems, from international standardisation, now published as European standard. He also underlines point 8.2 with the "List of projects in IEC/TC 31 SC 31M" with related comments. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/02/09 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) presented his written report. The first part was devoted to the question of "State of the Art" and the preparation of a specific Annex ZY to the relevant standards. On "Harmonisation", the standard EN was quite significant, for supporting the essential requirement 1.5. On "Future Standards", he gave an update on the new 2011 edition of EN and on EN : both standards had been developed at international level, with parallel voting procedures in Europe. There were also some issues related to IECEx scheme and possible implications at UNECE-SIEEE level. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/10 Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented his written report, covering the period January- June There were statistics and specific comments on standards, making reference also to the work developed by the relevant Technical Committees. Two specific points had been remarked, for sectors with problems not resolved yet: the first one concerned the draft standard for vacuum cleaners. This long-time issue could be discussed at the Committee, as Member States were aware of the "mail traffic" from specific stakeholders, on the use of vacuum cleaners for Zone 22 as Category 2 or 3. The standard from IEC , dealing with household appliances, could not be considered acceptable to be harmonised under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, as compliance would not be ensured in all situations. As results of joint efforts, a committee had been created in order to reach good progresses; in this sense, mechanisms of active participation in standardisation EN ISO/IEC :2011 Explosive atmospheres - Part 34: Application of quality systems for equipment manufacture (ISO/IEC DIS :2011) 121 EN 50495:2010 Safety devices required for the safe functioning of equipment with respect to explosion risks 256

257 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 should be fostered for interested stakeholders. Very recent developments took place there, with a Technical Committee proposing to include a small note to inform users on different use for vacuum cleaners: but the standard would not applicable in ATEX cases. Tensions in marked seemed to be very high, appearing the vacuum cleaner issue very important for small and medium enterprises, and it had consequences in different committees too. It would depend on the outcome of specific assessment for vacuum cleaners, to be ATEX-marked or not; it would very difficult to support one position or another, in view to solve these problems in the future. The second problematic issue was on standards EN dealing with internal combustion engines. There was an increasing demand in particular from offshore industry to update those standards, drafted in It could be done by re-activating the Committee who had written the standards now it was "dormant" or by transmitting the work to TC 305, as available experts in the field. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed that the series of standards EN 1834 had been harmonised in The normal revision period should be around 5 years, but their references would be kept in the list until any specific problem would be mentioned. IRELAND said that the issue on vacuum cleaners had been discussed many time at the Administrative Co-operation group meetings, including the last developments on standards and related committees. The NETHERLANDS recalled that for economic operators was not forbidden to use nonharmonised standards, within the procedures of the Directive. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) said that everybody should have information on that. If a European manufacturer would use an international, non-harmonised standard, he should do the necessary to fill the gap with regard to the requirements of the Directive: it could be difficult to have such "bridge", but this should be done by manufacturers, in order to comply with conformity for their products and to affix the relevant markings, to be checked by market surveillance authorities. The UNITED KINGDOM also mentioned previous discussions on vacuum cleaners: it was an AdCo issue but with borderlines with the ATEX Working Group. Companies were concerned on the situation and clashing standards. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) agreed on the need to explore those borderlines; maybe it could be used to reach a common position also in the Committee, as done in Administrative Cooperation. The issue on vacuum-cleaner would be followed up at the next working parties meetings. Update on substantial changes in the State of the Art and Harmonised Standards Docs. ExNB/10/388/CS, ExNB/397/CS Mr Houeix (ExNBG) introduced two Clarification Sheets, recently approved by the Coordination of Notified Bodies, on "Significant changes between European standards and the previous editions" and "A practical application of (the revised) 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines". Those documents summarised the previous discussions on the issue and the agreements on the content and format of the information to be provided concerning the State of the Art and modifications in Harmonised Standards. It would be useful to submit them to the noting process by the ATEX Standing Committee, in order to make them available to interested parties on the ATEX website. Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) expressed disagreement on the concept of "major changes" not related with safety. Mr Houeix (ExNBG) answered that the idea to change of a standard was keeping the speed of technical changes with regard the essential requirements: it would be reasonable to identify those changes, in particular major changes that would lead to new conformity assessment. The market needed to know and to follow the State of the Art, as required by the Directive. 122 Series EN 1834 (2000) Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Safety requirements for design and construction of engines for use in potentially explosive atmospheres - Parts 1, 2 and 3 257

258 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) clarified that manufacturers would not want to develop products other than according to the latest available standards, but in many cases those products should be reassessed even for formal changes. This should be avoided. The NETHERLANDS recalled that harmonised standards could be used when the product is placed on the market. For a new standard, a transition period would be provided, and during that, both standards would provide presumption of conformity for a product to be placed on the market for the first time. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) thought that the expression in the "Note" at page 3 of ExNB/10/388/CS "these changes should not normally have an influence on equipment already placed on the market" should be better clarified, for example in cases where a standard would be replaced by a new one for specific safety problems, after a formal objection, a safeguard clause etc. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that transition period should be considered, on documents regarding the State of the Art, as expressed in previous meetings. Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) fundamentally agreed with Mr Sinclair, about the use of both standards during a transition period. In alternative, manufacturers would need to carry out direct proof to the essential requirements of the Directive. Mr Houeix (ExNBG) agreed with the observations on harmonised standards, transition period and in particular the need for products to be in conformity to the essential requirements of the Directive. In this sense those documents were the results of the work carried out in the joint group CEN- CENELEC, involving also users and other interested parties, not only Notified Bodies. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) confirmed the participation to the work, overcoming also some difficulties regarding historical information and related documents. BELGIUM agreed on the need of revision and re-assessment in case of standards with serious faults. In this case, with a new State of the Art, those "old" standards should be removed from the list of harmonised standards, and products assessed with "old" standards should be withdrawn from the market. Member States could use formal objections against standards and safeguard clauses on products, to take action as said. Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) agreed with BELGIUM. Guidance provisions as in the Clarification Sheet should make clear distinction between "major changes" and "minor/formal changes", when there would not be serious problems in the standard, not involving safety requirements. FRANCE confirmed that the main issue was on products first placed on the market, not those already placed, unless in case of serious problems, raising a safeguard clause. BELGIUM agreed with FRANCE, to avoid any confusion. The principles were clear as well as the related procedures. Market surveillance authorities should remain vigilant and reactive. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) asked for information on when a fault is detected in a standard, leading to a potentially dangerous situation. Mr. Dill (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) answered that such a situation in the ATEX sector was not very frequent; indeed there was no case of procedure of withdrawing standard for being defective so far. The case under discussion concerned the normal update of standards according to available technologies and the State of the Art. In this sense, the contribution of standardisers and Notified Bodies would be very important for manufacturers, as presented in those papers. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed that the Clarification Sheets would be submitted to the noting procedure by the ATEX Standing Committee on CIRCA, in order to make them available on the ATEX website. Action XI COMM to submit the Clarification Sheets to the noting process by the ATEX Standing Committee on CIRCA. Update on a proposal on "International legal requirements for explosion protection" submitted to UNECE 258

259 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that a meeting of the Sectoral Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEE) would take place in Split (Croatia) on 7 th September He would participate with a presentation on the current state of the Directive and the position of the Commission on the international activities under discussion at the UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6). GERMANY confirmed the meeting and its importance to share opinions on the current situation between all the parties involved with attendances from different international areas, in the framework of the IECEx meeting (6-8 September). As usual, all the information was available on the relevant website Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee and other valid CS Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed that three Clarification Sheets would be submitted to the noting procedure by the ATEX Standing Committee on CIRCA, in order to make them available on the ATEX website 124 (see item 5.2, Action point III; and item 6.5, Action point XI). Update on current issues Mr Houeix (ExNBG) had no report on news. Notified Bodies registers in the NANDO system Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/13 GERMANY introduced a paper on differences/divergences detected in the Notified Bodies registers in the NANDO database system 125. With different amount and quality of information provided there, it could be difficult for manufacturers to correctly identify competencies, or even misleading. The NETHERLANDS agreed with GERMANY and asked for more harmonised information from all the interested parties, involving also standardisers, SOGS etc. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recognised the potential problem, as pointed out also by other interested parties. He agreed on discussing the issue with the horizontal Commission services in charge of the system, as well as to other interested parties, to explore the possibility to have a common template not only for notification but also to indicate competencies, field of operation and products for each Notified Body, in view to improve clearness and transparency in the information provided by NANDO. Action XII COMM to report the issue to the horizontal Commission services in charge of NANDO and other interested parties, in view to have a better presentation of the information provided there. 8. New Legislative Framework: update on the alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations (NANDO) Information System: 259

260 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 The Chairperson gave an update on the alignment of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 126, in particular the Decision 768/2008/EC. The Commission services believed that the adoption of the package, as Commission Proposal, should take place in September 2011, not before the summer break: the texts had to be translated before the adoption, to be sent to the Parliament and the Council, and to start discussing there. The UNITED KINGDOM asked for more details in the context of the alignment exercise and recast of Directives, in particular about time scheduling, validity of certificates, etc. The Chairperson answered that it would not be possible to foresee clear timeframes between the Commission Proposal and the approval by the Parliament and the Council: one year or two, it would depend on inter-institutional discussions. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recalled the information already provided at the last meeting by one of the person directly in charge of the alignment in the Commission services. There were several sensitive issues related to transition from the current Directive to the new one, concerning certificates, harmonised standards, notified bodies etc. Most of them would be established at horizontal level, for the whole package of Directives to be aligned, and would be confirmed only at the end of the process, with the final adoption by the Parliament and the Council. In this sense it would not be possible to provide any clear indication on duration of transitional period, the way to deal with certificates, etc. The NETHERLANDS remarked that changes based on the alignment to the New Legislative Framework could be substantial in practice, also with new numbering of the Directive, creating new burdens for economic operators. Mr Cloutier (CECOD), as representative of European manufacturers of petroleum measuring and distributing equipment, said that problems were already envisaged by the sector, and it would be very important to have clear indication to anticipate changes to be done, for their impact on the supply chain and on budget, and to be perfectly in line at the end of transitional period, when the legal requirements of the new Directive would enter in force. CECOD had already prepared and sent to the Commission a list of questions on those issues, asking for yes/no answers to general and specific statements. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that the new Directive, as a recast, would have a new number, but specific provisions would be included to intend references to the "old" Directive as to the "new" one, in order to avoid any unnecessary update of harmonised standards, notifications of bodies, certificates etc. With regard to the question raised by CECOD and others, he confirmed that at this stage it was not possible to provide any clear and reliable information on time and modalities of transition to the new Directives. It would be done as soon as possible and available, at the end of the interinstitutional adoption process: any other earlier information could not have serious ground and could be even misleading and counterproductive, creating expectations that could be contradicted by the real provisions, when established. The Chairperson added that, after the release of the Commission Proposal, the exercise would be mastered by the European Parliament and the Council: they would decide how and when to organize their own agenda to discuss this legislation. The Commission services could not anticipate information or opinions, taking also into consideration positions to be taken by the Member States, the Rapporteur, etc. Going towards the objective of a complete agreement on a final interinstitutional text, without any mayor difference of controversy, it could take one or two years, or even more. In any case, according to previous experience in similar exercises, the Commission services could ensure that the transitional period would be long enough to allow manufacturers a smooth transition and adaptation to the new regime, preventing possible problems. Parliament and Council were usually very careful on that, avoiding too short transitional periods, especially for health and safety issues. 126 New Legislative Framework: 260

261 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 In any case, the issue would be continuously followed up by the Commission services. Any question and comment would be taken into consideration and the Committee would be kept informed on the next developments throughout the whole process, from the final text of the Commission Proposal until the arrangements for the transitional period. Further report and update on the situation would be given at the next ATEX WG meeting. Ex Marking in the New Legislative Framework for ATEX Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/03 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) presented the new version of the paper, according to suggestions and remarks expressed at the last ATEX WG meeting. It included also the draft content of the Article dealing with the specific marking of explosion protection εx (epsilon-x) the "hexagon" in the new ATEX Directive, aligned to the New Legislative Framework. DENMARK thought that size and form of the specific marking should be defined in the new ATEX Directive, as the CE marking, for its legal protection at the same level. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) answered that the reference to size and form of the εx marking was included in Annex I of Directive 84/47/EEC, as mentioned in the ATEX Guidelines. But this Directive was no longer in force, so it would be problematic to include such definition in the aligned ATEX Directive. It would be recalled in the new ATEX Guidelines after the alignment. The same approach would be followed to clarify any controversial point coming from the alignment, trying to adapt the legal text from the Decision 768/2008/EC on definitions, obligations etc. to the specific working environment of the ATEX sector. Proposal for new aligned ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/04 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) introduced the paper with a proposal for the development of new ATEX Guidelines, in connection with the aligned ATEX Directive. In addition to the necessary changes coming from the new text mainly from Decision 768/2008/EC and other legal and formal adaptations, a new structure for the ATEX Guidelines was proposed: it would be similar to the one used in the current Guide to the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC 127, with comments on the text of the Directive, one by one. The result would be a comprehensive tool for the interpretation and application of the Directive. The new ATEX Guidelines would be drafted by the Commission services in association with an "Editorial committee" with experts from the ATEX Committee and Working Group, working mainly by and also alongside the working party meetings, in the timeframe of the codecision procedure in the European Parliament and European Council. The results of the work of the Editorial committee would be regularly reported to all the Committee members. Seven persons volunteered to participate: - Mr Cloutier (CECOD) - Mr Delaney (IRELAND) - Mr Kagerud (SWEDEN) - Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) - Mr Kristensen (DENMARK) - Mr Lienesch (GERMANY) - Mr Lunnon (UNITED KINGDOM). 127 Guide to application of Directive 2006/42/EC: 261

262 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) thanked the volunteers. A first contact by among the members of the editorial group would take place in September 2011, when the text of the Commission proposal for the new aligned ATEX Directive would be available. Action XIII COMM to convene by the "Editorial group" for the new aligned ATEX Guidelines in September 2011, when the text of the Commission proposal for the new aligned ATEX Directive would be available. 9. Interfaces ATEX "product" 94/9/EC and "workplace" Directives 1999/92/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/04 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) introduced Mr Herbillon, from Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Equal Opportunities (DG EMPL) 128 of the European Commission, in charge of ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC, in order to start direct co-operation with the Committee on the subjects of common interests as presented in the paper, and others. Mr Herbillon (Commission) introduced himself and his activities at DG EMPL, dealing with the ATEX sector by the perspective of employers and the use of equipment in workplaces, with the proper risk assessment and procedures, etc. Directive 1999/92/EC was part of set of individual "social" directives under Art. 137 of the Treaty 129, when Directive 94/9/EC was under Art The Directive was in a "quiet" situation, with very few questions or interpretation problems, and no Parliamentary questions. In any case the relevant services were fully aware of the relationships between the two ATEX Directives with their different perspectives, to be applied in a complementary way but with possible confusion. Work ongoing at the ATEX Committee was followed up by DG EMPL services, in its technical and implementation aspects: they were always available for any questions or suggestions, and to co-operate with all interested parties, as Member States representatives, industrial manufacturers, etc. SWEDEN asked how the New Legislative Framework could affect also Directive 1999/92/EC. Mr Herbillon (Commission) answered that the alignment/recast exercise should not change anything fundamental there; maybe just a formal update. A more comprehensive check and revision of the social framework directives, taking into consideration their quality and implementation, would be carried out in the future, with external contractors (a call for tenders should be launched in 2015) and the cooperation of Member States. Being a total of 20 directives of this type, it would be a huge amount of work. GERMANY inquired on aspects related to service repair and maintenance in the Directive, and about the work already carried out by Member States on that, to be taken into consideration. The NETHERLANDS asked for more information on social directives under Art. 137 also for the PPE 131 sector. Mr Herbillon (Commission) said that questions related to repair and installation were covered by the Directive, with responsibility of employers to put in place the necessary provisions and mechanisms, from a legal point of view. De facto, in a company, installation of equipment would be in charge of the responsible of the site; but maybe it could be necessary to clarify some practical aspects in specific cases, regarding explosion risks, possible deficiencies in safety, etc. 128 DG EMPL - Health and Safety at Work: Art. 137 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) corresponds now to Art. 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 130 Art. 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) corresponds now to Art. 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 131 Personal Protective Equipment Directive 89/686/EEC (PPE) See also ATEX Guidelines

263 XXV. 1 JULY 2011 Similar approach and similar "quiet" situation were also for the PPE sector under the social directives, interested in the revision process already mentioned. In the future, each sector would have two specific directives covering the different aspects of manufacturers/products and employers/workplace, being different chapters of the Treaty. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) thanked Mr Herbillon for his contribution and availably and confirmed the best willing for cooperation from the ATEX 94/9/EC Committee. He went through the main points of the document ATEX_WG/11/1/04: - point 1.1 would be developed between the relevant Commission services in DG ENTR and DG EMPL, in order to improve the respective websites with crossed presentations and references, where necessary; - points 1.2 and 1.3 would be the object of specific proposals for a new revised edition of the ATEX Guidelines, to be submitted to the ATEX Standing Committee; - point 1.4 would be dealt with by recovering the results of the "Ad-hoc group for issues of interface and the 'grey zone' between Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC", to be revised and presented at the next ATEX WG meeting. Other specific issues would be followed up under items currently under discussion, or by opening new items. Action XIV COMM to improve the DG ENTR and DG EMPL respective websites with crossed presentations and references, where necessary. COMM to develop specific proposals for a new revised edition of the ATEX Guidelines, in view of improve guidance documents taking into consideration points of common interests and crossed references between Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC. COMM to recover the results of the "Ad-hoc group for issues of interface and the 'grey zone' between Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC", to be revised and presented at the next ATEX WG meeting. 10. Any other business ORGALIME proposal: Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC (MED) revision Mr Klütsch (ORGALIME) proposed a question related to the revision of the Marine Equipment Directive (MED) 96/98/EC 132, regarding explosion protection, for a possible reference to the ATEX Directive and its harmonised standards. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that he would check the issue with the concerned colleagues in the Commission services and he would report at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action XV COMM to check the issue on MED-ATEX with the concerned colleagues in the Commission services, to report at the next ATEX WG meeting. 11. Next meeting date Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group would be planned on 26 January 2012 in Brussels. Confirmation would be sent in due time. 132 Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC (MED)

264 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Chemicals, metals, mechanical, electrical and construction industries; Raw materials Mechanical, Electrical and Telecom Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 21 February 2012 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr Luis Filipe GIRÃO (COMM ENTR/G4) COMM Participants: Ms Birgit WEIDEL, Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr Bernd MERZ, Ms Magdalena MODER (ENTR/G4) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 1 July 2011 Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels 1 st July The NETHERLANDS confirmed, as previously communicated, that the second part of Action point IV "5.3: Filter units and vented silo bins - Precision", related to "installations and assembly" was no longer needed. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed that it would be deleted from the list of Action points and from the minutes. With this modification, the draft minutes were approved. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) informed on the latest developments and updates on the ATEX website on EUROPA 133, under the new logo of the Commission. He mentioned in particular the publication, on the "Management of the Directive" page 134, of the updated

265 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 version of the consolidated minutes of the meetings of the Working Group of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Standing Committee from 1997 to 2008, as well as two recent presentations on the ATEX sector (2010 and 2011). Moreover, a new consolidated list of Harmonised Standards had been published on the Official Journal on 18 November ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation SWEDEN (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the last Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 17 th ) held in Brussels on 20 February As usual, the main points discussed had included market surveillance activities and procedures, technical and legal issues for the application of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, standardisation issues, etc. Documents and full reports on the AdCo meeting would be made available on CIRCA 136. In particular, the final report on the "Joint cross-border market surveillance campaign 2010" had been presented, with its main results and findings. The Commission services agreed to publish the report on the ATEX website, to make it available to all the interested parties. Furthermore, and updated version of the "Borderline list - ATEX products" had been discussed, to be submitted to the ATEX Working Group. Action I COMM to publish on the ATEX website the report "Joint cross-border ATEX market surveillance campaign on Equipment intended to be used in Explosive Atmospheres 2010". 4. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation and application questions Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere Doc. ATEX_WG/11/1/10 rev. 1 The UNITED KINGDOM recalled the contents and the aim of the paper submitted at previous meetings. The NETHERLANDS had asked to strength references to CEN/CENELEC standards, including more guidance on documentation and marking; further remarks had been made by SWEDEN, for situations to be considered as examples. The paper had been discussed also at the AdCo meeting, with an agreement on the need to look back to the text to improve it for the ATEX Guidelines. A new version of the paper would be presented at the next meeting. Action II UK to present a new improved version of the paper at the next ATEX WG meeting. Minimum content for an EC-Type Examination test report Docs. ATEX_WG/11/2/06 (ExNB/11/400/CS), ATEX_WG/12/1/03 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) reported on the action points agreed at the last meeting. The Clarification Sheet ExNB/11/400/CS "Content of a European standardised ATEX Test Report" had been submitted to the noting process, by written procedure on CIRCA: with no comment expressed, it has been considered as noted on 26 January 2012, and

266 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 made available on the relevant ATEX webpage 137. The Clarification Sheet had been submitted to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation and Conformity Assessment Policy (SOGS) meeting on 15 December 2011, asking the Members to express their opinion on it: they had considered that this standardised assessment/test report could be used not only in the ATEX sector but also under other New Approach / New Legislative Directives, and there was not clear awareness on possible horizontal problems related to the scope of accreditation of Notified Bodies. The question would be followed up to get more information, if necessary. Finally, he presented a proposal to introduce into the ATEX Guidelines the contents of the mentioned Clarification Sheet, as a specific subsection The NETHERLANDS supported the proposal. GERMANY had nothing against the proposal, but they would need to get the opinion of interested parties in Germany, after a 4 week period started on 10 th February. The Chairperson agreed to give more time to check the proposal, during a month after the meeting. Any comment and objection should be sent in written form, to be taken into consideration within the end of March 2012; otherwise, the Commission would consider the proposal as approved and it would be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines. Action III ALL to send comments and objections on the proposal, until the end of March Without comments, COMM to insert the content on the Clarification Sheet on "Minimum content of a European standardised test report" into the ATEX Guidelines. Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/10 rev. 3 GERMANY introduced the new version of the paper, with some changes in the point related to installation and putting into service, as suggested by the NETHERLANDS for clarification at the last meeting. The NETHERLANDS agreed on the new version of the paper. FRANCE said that they shared concerns of stakeholders on the use of this kind of equipment, covered by the ATEX Directive, regarding how to implement relevant provisions regarding installers and their qualification. GERMANY recalled that the question and the paper had been repeatedly discussed, considering in particular the borderline situation between placing on the market and installation: to make clear at what point "installation" would begin, but not dealing with installations, as stated in the foreword. Heating cables and any other necessary part for installation should be considered under national legislation, as in other similar equipment. The Chairperson underlined the need to have a uniform implementation of those aspects in the European Union. With no further comments, the updated version of the document would be published on the ATEX website. Action IV COMM to upload the updated version of the document as Consideration Paper on "Electrical trace heating systems" on the ATEX website. Mist explosion hazards Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/

267 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 The UNITED KINGDOM recalled the question from previous meetings, waiting for comments on the paper from the ATEX Working Group representatives. The NETHERLANDS announced a comment, to be sent directly to the UNITED KINGDOM. The Chairperson confirmed that the point would be followed up at the next Working Group meeting, with relevant comments on the UK paper. Action V UK and NL to report at the next ATEX WG meeting on comments on the UK paper. PED equipment under 94/9/EC: request for clarification Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/04 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) introduced a proposal for text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines 6.6 regarding the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23/EC 138, on the basis of discussion at the last meeting. It would state that PED equipment, not having in most cases their own source of ignition, should not be considered under the ATEX Directive when showing hot surfaces during normal operation, caused by the temperature of its content solely. The UNITED KINGDOM suggested checking such proposal with the relevant services in charge of PED. SWEDEN agreed on the proposal and the UK proposal. The Chairperson confirmed that the proposal would be checked with the Commission services dealing with the Pressure Equipment Directive. On this basis, a revised proposal would be submitted at the next meeting. Action VI COMM to check the proposal with the services in charge of PED and to submit a revised text at the next ATEX WG meeting. Update of the Borderline list - ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/05 SWEDEN introduced a new version of the "Borderline list - ATEX products", with several changes proposed in different items of equipment, components and other products. DENMARK said that more discussions had taken place also in the last AdCo meeting. It would be necessary to have the very last version, including all the contributions provided. SWEDEN said that they would update and circulate the list as soon as possible. The Chairperson agreed on having the last updated for the next meeting, asking for comments on it, to be able to discuss and approve it. Action VII SE to provide the last updated version of the list for the next ATEX WG meeting. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/11 rev

268 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 IRELAND introduced the revised version of the paper on ATEX Guidelines A number of examples had been added, as suggested at the last meeting, with contributions from GERMANY, FRANCE, SWEDEN and others. Taking into consideration that the new document had been circulated only few days before the meeting, it would be necessary to have more time to analyse the content, to be discussed at the next meeting. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) remarked that the harmonised standard EN covered the essential requirements of both ATEX and Machinery Directives for "Turbine pumps Submerged in Petrol Tanks". The Chairperson confirmed that the document would be re-circulated on CIRCA and tabled for the next meeting. Action VIII COMM to table the revised IE document for the next ATEX Working Group meeting. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/12 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) recalled the question as it has been presented at the last meeting. As agreed, the UK paper was submitted to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation and Conformity Assessment Policy (SOGS) meeting on 15 December 2011, in order to ask for their opinion. The importance of the problem was recognised as horizontal issue, being related to how conformity assessment modules operate in New Approach legislation, with a distributor becoming a manufacturer, also in view of ongoing discussions on alignment to the New Legislative Framework. Some SOGS members underlined that problems could arise from misuse of modules related to quality assurance, with intervention of different Notified Bodies. The proposed solution was considered interesting and potentially extensible to similar problems with products/equipment covered by other NA/NLF Directives, but the real relevance of the question did not appear very clear yet. It was agreed to search for more information from Member States and sectoral experts, in order to follow up the issue and to agree a common position. The NETHERLANDS proposed to specifically ask the Notified Bodies Group to look at the UK paper, and to express their opinion. The Chairperson remarked how it was a complex issue, by a legal and technical point of view, involving the relationships between the "original" manufacturer and the "trade agent" company, different Notified Bodies performing assessment of Quality Systems and issuing EC-Type Examination Certificates, etc. GERMANY supported the proposal from the NETHERLANDS: as the problem would take place on the ground, it would be very useful to know the Notified Bodies' practices. The UNITED KINGDOM replied to the previous comments, saying that the paper had been written taking into consideration the Notified Bodies' views, and it would be very useful to enlarge the vision on that. FRANCE and DENMARK also supported the need to explicitly ask the Notified Bodies Group for their opinion on the question, to clarify their practices in such cases of "original" and "derivate" products placed on the market. It would be up to the Working Group to take a decision on the question and to follow up its implementation. 139 EN 15268:2008 Petrol filling stations - Safety requirements for the construction of submersible pump assemblies 268

269 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 Mr Thedens (ExNBG) said that the UK paper would be presented for discussion at the next ExNBG meeting in November 2012, and they would provide a verbal report, in particular on how concrete situations were implemented. The Chairperson clarified that, from a legal point of view, a trade agent placing a product on the market in its own name, would assume the same responsibilities as manufacturer. So, it would be necessary to ask Notified Bodies about relationships and responsibilities in their activities concerning the safety of the product, use of certificates and of names and brands, the awareness of a manufacturer about the activities of trade agents, possible conflicts of interests, and so on. It would be necessary to have information on practices in the field, in particular on responsibilities of Notified Bodies when issuing certificates. FRANCE remarked that the document considered issuing a certificate to "trade agent" company on behalf of the "original" company, and the role of involved Notified Bodies did not appear very clear regarding safety assessment and quality assurance. The effective implementing practices should be identified and it would be necessary to ask the Notified Bodies Group for more information from their next meeting. GERMANY agreed with FRANCE on the explanation of the general problem: the need for specific assessment and the links between trade agent and Notified Bodies, with the same Notified Body issuing two certificates. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) said that, according to the scheme, the "original" manufacturer would be in charge of responsibility in case of problems with the product or accidents. Difficulties could arise also with the name of manufacturer in the EC-type examination certificate. FRANCE mentioned the Consideration Paper on the ATEX website on "Certificates and CE marking without the name of the original manufacturer" 140, where issuing a second EC-type certificate in a second manufacturer's name was considered, including necessary declarations and agreements between the two manufacturers. Should the question need to be further clarified? The Chairperson considered that the issue should be kept pending. Legal references on responsibilities of manufacturers and the safety requirements for the product were clear, but it would be necessary to collect opinions from the Working Group and from the Notified Bodies Group, to improve implementation in practice. He invited all the Members to send their contributions for the next meeting, to be added also to feedback from SOGS and the Commission services in charge of other Directives. Action IX ALL to send comments and contributions on the issue for the next ATEX WG meeting. The form of the instructions: text for ATEX Guidelines Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/06 SWEDEN introduced the paper to propose the addition of a text into the ATEX Guidelines, concerning the form of the instructions in paper form, but also considering electronic form, in a similar way as stated in the Machinery Guide. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) appreciated the proposal. He suggested adding a sentence, indicating that only safety-related instructions should be supplied in paper form. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) agreed on the convenience to require safety instructions on paper, allowing other more complete instructions in electronic format, taking into consideration that users would be experts. He remarked that devices provided to read information on electronic

270 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 format should be ATEX-compliant, as they would be used in potentially explosive atmospheres. The Chairperson confirmed that all health and safety-related instructions should be provided in paper form. He noted the agreement on the proposal, adding a remark on paper form particularly needed for safety-related instructions, but not for other kind of information. Action X COMM to add the proposed text into the ATEX Guidelines , remarking that the need of paper form applies in particular for health and safety-related instructions. ATEX 94/9/EC and the Marine Equipment Directive (MED) 96/98/EC Docs. ATEX_WG/12/1/07, ATEX_WG/12/1/07_1 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) introduced a proposal for the ATEX Guidelines regarding relationship with the Marine Equipment Directive (MED) 96/98/EC 141, after the point raised by ORGALIME. The text should be included as 6.10 to clarify the status of the two directives and the situation of equipment suitable to be used both in potentially explosive atmospheres and in marine equipment. GERMANY supported the proposal. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) enquired on the possibility to have equipment with both markings, ATEX and MED. BELGIUM suggested modifying, in the last sentence in the paragraph, from "ATEX Directive or by the MED" to "and/or". The Chairperson said that such equipment should comply with the requirements of both directives, depending on its use, if it could be used onshore and offshore. The proposal should be revised to clearly state this. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) said that the proposal did not reflect the solution they had in mind, but they could accept it, to have guidance on application of two different legislations. He asked for support to find practical solutions from the relevant Commission services. The Chairperson confirmed that a revised text of the proposal would be circulated again in view to insert it into the ATEX Guidelines. Action XI COMM to revise the proposal, according to discussion, and to circulate the new text for the next ATEX Working Group meeting. Equipment used in offshore oil and gas industry Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/08 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) introduced the document with the draft Mandate for standardisation in the field of equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry. It concerned also the ATEX sector, alongside Machinery and Pressure Equipment, and it would be sent to the concerned European Standardisation Organisations, CEN and CENELEC. In addition, he informed that the Commission services were going to launch an impact assessment study on the possible extension of the scope of the Machinery, Pressure Equipment and ATEX Directives to equipment used on mobile offshore units. 141 Marine Equipment Directive 96/98/EC (MED)

271 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 GERMANY asked for more information on the issue, in particular the need for harmonising existing standards, or to develop new standards. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) explained that practical options to fulfil the Mandate would be up to CEN and CENELEC. Ms Poidevin (CEN/CENELEC) said that the CEN Technical Committee 12 "Materials, equipment and offshore structures for petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries", in charge of the issue, would organise a meeting with experts of the three sectors involved, asking for their contributions. Standardisation and harmonisation needs would be checked, taking into consideration also influence from USA system and solutions, even based in a different philosophy, but for a more global harmonisation of existing standards. The Chairperson said that updated information would be provided in due time. Refrigerators for use in laboratories Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/13 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper with a query on refrigerators for use in laboratories. They proposed to add a specific entry into the "ATEX Borderline list", stating that in general terms such equipment would be not be in scope of Directive 94/9/EC, except when used in potentially explosive atmospheres, in relationship also with the Low Voltage Directive 2006/95/EC. The text had been discussed also in the AdCo meeting and it had been agreed to revise it, making it more general, including also different possible laboratory settings, as well as a link to the ATEX "workplace Directive" 1999/92/EC. A revised text would be presented at the next meeting. The Chairperson confirmed that the revised text would be presented at the next meeting and invited the Working Group members to submit their comments. Action XII UK to present a revised text at the next ATEX WG meeting. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 18 November 2011, as indicated on the relevant EUROPA webpage 142. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/10 Mr Von Hoegen (CEN TC 305) presented the intermediate report of the Secretariat on activities of the CEN Technical Committee 305, including remarks on the draft Commission Mandate for standardisation in the field of equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry, as well as on the new format of Annex ZY on the "State of the art". Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/

272 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission), being the Chairperson (Mr Sinclair) absent, briefly introduced the report on activities of the CENELEC Technical Committee 31. The report focused on the "State of the art" question, with a positive evolution in implementation of Annex ZY, and on the new version of the standard EN , under formal vote. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/09 Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) introduced himself as the new CEN/CENELEC Consultant since 1 st January 2012, replacing Mr Dill. He presented the contents of the report covering the period July-December Update on substantial changes in the State of the Art and Harmonised Standards Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) made reference to the contents of the report from CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31, dealing with the last developments on the "State of the Art" question and the implementation of the new Annex ZY in standards. He also confirmed that the ExNBG Clarification Sheets on "Significant changes between European standards and the previous editions" and "A practical application of (the revised) 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines" had been considered as noted by the ATEX Standing Committee after Written Procedure on CIRCA and they had been uploaded on the relevant ATEX webpage 143. Update on a proposal on "International legal requirements for explosion protection" submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the meeting of the Sectoral Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEE), held in Split (Croatia) on 7 th September 2011, as a very interesting opportunity to share opinions on the current situation between all the parties involved, with attendances from different international areas, in the framework of the IECEx meeting (6-8 September). Moreover, the annual session of UNECE Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) took place in Geneva (Switzerland) from 31 October to 2 November All the related information was available on the WP.6 website 144. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed his participation at the meeting in Split and said that the presentation offered there was available also on the ATEX website Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee and other valid CS Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed that, according to the results of the last ATEX Working Group meeting, three Clarification Sheets had been submitted to the noting process by the ATEX Standing Committee, by Written Procedure on CIRCA. No comment had been received and the Consideration Sheets had been considered as noted on 26 January 2012, and there were made available on the ATEX website

273 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 GERMANY said that the paper on "A practical application of (the revised) 10.3 of the ATEX Guidelines" (ExNB/10/397/CS) had received some controversial comments from German stakeholders. There was not full consensus yet on the "State of the art". Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) answered that the concept could remain not totally clear, but the basic operative agreement was related to the consideration of standardisers, in order to identify the nature of changes in new editions of standards. Update on current issues Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) informed that the "ATEX group of Notified Bodies" on CIRCA was going to be migrated to the new platform CIRCABC 146. The migration process would involve all the interest groups on CIRCA within the next months. Specific information would be provided to all the Members. Mr Thedens (ExNBG) mentioned an issue on components and equipment, with related certifications, as storage components. The question would be followed up for better clarification. Notified Bodies registers in the NANDO system Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) reported on the question raised by GERMANY at the last meeting, after some investigation with the Commission services in charge of the NANDO database 147. The system was designed for the whole group of directives under the New Approach and it needed to have high level of flexibility, also in the basic structure of its contents: so, it would be very difficult to have more strict requirements on the amount of information in NANDO about competencies, fields of activities and products for each conformity assessment body, as notified there by national competent authorities. The Commission would try to invite all the concerned parties to be as clear and harmonised as possible using NANDO, but in many cases it would not be possible to avoid to have more detailed descriptions than others, for example when the activities of a Notified Body did not cover all the products in scope of a directive or all the modules. In any case, the relevant Commission services would follow up the issue, in particular when specific problems could be pointed out. 7. New NLF aligned ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/12 Ms Weidel (Commission) provided an update on current discussion on the proposal for the alignment of the ATEX Directive to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 148. Relevant working parties in the Council and the Parliament were proceeding quite fast, going through by thematic chapters of the package for all the 9 directives involved. A number of comments and remarks had been expressed, also for the ATEX Directive, but not for substantial issues. Mr Thedens (ExNBG) expressed the opinion of the Group of Notified Bodies on the possible transition period for the new directive: they thought that 2 years would be too short timeframe for undertaking all the necessary changes on internal and external documents. ExNBG New Approach Notified and Designated Organisations (NANDO) Information System: New Legislative Framework: 273

274 XXVI. 21 FEBRUARY 2012 proposed a transition period of 5 years, taking into consideration the normal validity period of quality notifications and harmonised standards. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) supported the ExNBG proposal on transition period. The Chairperson said that it would be difficult to consider such a proposal. Discussions on NLF were ongoing in parallel at the Council and the Parliament, envisaging the approbation of the package maybe in 2013, and then a delay for transposition would be provided. 2 years for transition period, for the ATEX Directive as for the others of the package, should be enough for all concerned parties, from national authorities to manufacturers and Notified Bodies, as there would not be any need of changes on substantial aspects of the implementation of the Directive: just in documents to be adapted. The job could be done with active participation of all involved parties. FRANCE asked for confirmation of validity of certificates of conformity issued according to the current directive, whether they could be used by manufacturers also after the end of the transition period to the new directive. The Chairperson answered affirmatively, making reference to the Article 40 (2) of the proposal: "Certificates of conformity issued pursuant to Article 8 of Directive 94/9/EC shall be valid under this Directive", without any further time limit, as agreed after legal discussion. Those who had obtained certification under the current directive would keep the certificate valid under the future directive. Further report and update on the process would be given at the next ATEX WG meeting. 8. Interfaces ATEX "product" 94/9/EC and "workplace" Directives 1999/92/EC Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that no progresses had been made on the main points related to interfaces between the ATEX directives. 9. Any other business Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that a presentation on the new platform "Market surveillance" 149 would be offered by an ORGALIME representative at the next meeting. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group was planned on 12 July 2012 in Brussels. Confirmation would be sent in due time

275 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Chemicals, metals, mechanical, electrical and construction industries; Raw materials Mechanical, Electrical and Telecom Equipment ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 12 July 2012 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr Luis Filipe GIRÃO (COMM ENTR/G4) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Magdalena MODER, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (ENTR/G4) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/01 rev. 1 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 21 February 2012 Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 21 February The draft minutes were approved. 3. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation IRELAND (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the last Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 18 th ) held in Shannon (Ireland) on June As usual, the main points discussed had included market surveillance activities and procedures, technical and legal issues for the application of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, standardisation issues, etc. Some of the points on the agenda of the ATEX Working Group had been discussed also at the AdCo meeting, in particular those related to UK query on refrigerators for use in laboratories, electrical trace heating systems, borderline list, and safety controlling and regulating devices. Documents and full reports on the 275

276 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 AdCo meeting would be made available as soon as possible on the new ATEX AdCo Interest Group on CIRCABC 150. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) informed about the latest news on the migration of the ATEX-related Interest Groups from CIRCA to the new platform CIRCABC. The process had been successfully concluded, but some problems still remained, regarding the full and quick operation of the system, available features, management of documents and members, etc. These problems were on the way to be solved, in the framework of the general migration of a large number of interest groups in different sectors, and the progressive consolidation of the platform. Further information and guidance for users would be provided soon. AUSTRIA underlined the need to improve the CIRCABC helpdesk service, to receive more punctual assistance. DENMARK mentioned specific points to be improved: the password recovering system, the lay-out of contents for each page (at present only on 10 lines), the name of folders, the first messages when opening the system, etc. The Chairperson expressed thanks for any comments, suggestions and feedback provided. They would be duly transmitted to the services in charge of CIRCABC. 4. Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation and application questions Electrical trace heating systems: comments by FI Docs. ATEX_WG/10/1/10 rev. 3 - REVISED, ATEX_WG/12/2/03 GERMANY recalled discussion on the subject. After the last meeting, FINLAND had expressed some comments, so the paper had been re-discussed in order to better clarify its scope, regarding placing on the market, putting into service and installation of electrical trace heating systems. As a result, a revised version was presented, to be approved as Consideration Paper. FINLAND confirmed the agreement on the revised version of the paper. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) noted the general agreement of the Working Group on the revised Consideration Paper. It would be uploaded on the ATEX website 151 as replacing the old version. Action I COMM to upload the revised version of Consideration Paper on "Electrical trace heating systems" on the ATEX website. Clarification of marking for equipment with an internal explosive atmosphere Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/06 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a new improved version of the paper, with more comments received from Member States, in particular about references to standards and guidance on documentation and marking. At the last AdCo meeting it has been proposed that this work should be taken as part of a wider revision of the ATEX Guidelines, following the on-going alignment revision of the Directive. At that moment, the document could be further improved

277 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the proposal expressed by the UNITED KINGDOM, to postpone further developments on the issue until new ATEX Guidelines would be drafted for the new Directive. Mist explosion hazards Doc. ATEX_WG/10/1/12 The UNITED KINGDOM summarised the question from the previous meetings, with the information request from laboratories. Several Member States had sent their answers and comments. The project had come to an end some time ago and there was no further information. The Chairperson confirmed that the point could be closed. PED equipment under 94/9/EC: request for clarification Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/04 rev. 1 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) presented the revised proposal for text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines 6.6 regarding the Pressure Equipment Directive (PED) 97/23/EC 152. It had been checked with the Commission services in charge of PED, taking into consideration also some contents of the PED Guidelines. The Chairperson noted the general agreement of those present on the revised text. It would be inserted into the new consolidated edition of the ATEX Guidelines. Such 4 th edition would be issued in August 2012 and it would be the last one, before the new restructured guidelines for the new NLF aligned Directive. Action II COMM to insert the approved text on PED into the new consolidated edition of the ATEX Guidelines. Update of the Borderline list - ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/04 rev. 1 SWEDEN introduced the latest version of the "Borderline list - ATEX products", including the recent changes proposed by several Member States, also at the last AdCo meeting. It was submitted for approval and insertion into the ATEX Guidelines, to update the current list issued in Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) asked why "complex earthing clamps" were indicated as "non electrical": they should be considered as "electrical" too. SWEDEN agreed on the suggestion of Mr Sinclair. CZECH REPUBLIC asked for clarification on "sight glasses", considered outside the scope of the Directive: there were certificates with some kind of them, when used as a part of type of protection, as flameproof enclosure. They suggested adding more information on that. GERMANY said that the point was proposed by them, for "simple" sight glasses, without own ignition source in the sense of the Directive, so outside the scope. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) observed that spark arrestors should be considered as electrical, as components to protect ATEX equipment not during its normal operation, but in case of

278 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 lightning, in the sense of the standard EN ; how it should be marked in such a case? Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) proposed to approve the list with two editorial changes, on earthing clamps and on sight glasses the specific sentence to be added there would be checked later. This new list would be made available on the ATEX website 154 with the new edition of the ATEX Guidelines. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the proposal. Action III COMM to insert into the ATEX Guidelines and to publish on the ATEX website the updated 2012 Borderline List, with the two editorial changes on earthing clamps and on sight glasses. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/11 rev. 1 IRELAND reported on the last developments on the paper, also from the AdCo meeting. It would need further discussions and improvements, in view of a possible inclusion into the new ATEX Guidelines. The Chairperson agreed on waiting for new improved version of the proposal, with more contribution from members, for the next meeting. Action IV IE to submit a new improved version of the document at the next ATEX Experts Group meeting. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/11/2/12 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that no further comments or contributions had been produced after the last meeting and the presentation of the UK paper to the Senior Officials Group on Standardisation and Conformity Assessment Policy (SOGS) and to the Commission Inter-service meeting on Free Movement of Goods (ISM-FMG). Also other sectors had shown interest on the questions, with on-going discussion for example in Measuring Instruments about implementation and check of quality systems, from the conception/design phase to manufacturing, having the whole relevant documentation from the original manufacturer. In any case, on these bases, in order to have a positive outcome of the question in the ATEX sector, Mr Gabrielli proposed to work on the development and improvement of the contents of the Consideration Paper on the ATEX website on "Certificates and CE marking without the name of the original manufacturer" 155, in particular the points "Case 2: De facto Manufacturer" and "Case 3: Second EC-type certificate in a second manufacturer's name", by adding the main points of the UK paper. A proposal in this sense would be drafted and submitted by the Commission services at the next ATEX Experts Group meeting. Action V 153 EN :2010 Explosive atmospheres - Part 25: Intrinsically safe electrical systems (IEC :2010)

279 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 COMM to draft a proposal to include the main points of the UK paper into the Consideration Paper "Certificates and CE marking without the name of the original manufacturer, to be submitted at the next ATEX Experts Group meeting. ATEX 94/9/EC and the Marine Equipment Directive (MED) 96/98/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/05 Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) presented the revised proposal of text to be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines concerning the Marine Equipment Directive (MED) 96/98/EC 156, according to the discussion held at the last WG meeting. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the proposal. Action VI COMM to insert the text as approved into the new edition of the ATEX Guidelines. Refrigerators for use in laboratories Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/07 rev. 1 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the revised paper on "Refrigerators and storage cabinets for volatile substances intended for use in laboratories: generally not in the scope of 94/9/EC", with specific notes on operative conditions and foreseeable measures, as well as on an appropriate standard. If approved, this could be considered for a new edition of the Borderline List. The Chairperson noted the approval by consensus of the UK paper. Action VII SE and COMM to consider the approved UK paper for a new edition of the ATEX Borderline List. Equipment used in offshore oil and gas industry Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) reported on the last developments on equipment used in offshore oil and gas industry, regarding standardisation and possible modification of the ATEX Directive, alongside the Machinery and Pressure Equipment Directives. The mandate issued by the Commission had not been accepted by CEN/CENELEC, not considering necessary such a mandate in addition to the current ones; the Commission services would reply accordingly, in co-operation with other interested parties. On the other hand, call for tenders to carry out a "Study on the impacts of possible amendments to the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, the Pressure Equipment Directive 97/23/EC and the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC with respect to equipment intended for use in the offshore oil and gas industry" would be launched by the end of July 2012 (see "Contract and grants" section of the Commission's Mechanical Engineering webpage 157 ). Ms Poidevin (CEN/CENELEC) clarified that the rejection of mandate was due to not consider it appropriate to address the question of equipment used in offshore platforms. This should not considered as a "refusal", because CEN/CENELEC had expressed their disposition to analyse more precise standardisation requests for particular types of equipment, as being to be proposed by NORWAY and others

280 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 The Chairperson remarked that on the question there were different points of view and possible misunderstanding. The Commission would complete the assessment of the question and it would be further discussed in the appropriate places. 5. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 4 May 2012, as indicated on the relevant EUROPA webpage 158. A new updated list should be published soon, by the next sending by CEN and CENELEC, by the end of July or beginning of August Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 No representative of CEN TC 305 was present at the meeting, nor a written report had been submitted. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) apologized for not being able to submit a written report, but he would do so as soon as possible. He orally reported on the last developments on the new edition of EN , with the Annex ZY and the list of changes to the previous edition, significant or not, etc. The format had been adopted also at IEC level, with an equivalent table meaning recognition not only in Europe but also internationally. Final draft of the standard was submitted to vote, and further discussion would be held in next months. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/12/2/10 Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented the report on his activities for the first semester 2012 in the ATEX field. It included information on attended meetings, assessment of standards, standardisation work for electrical and non-electrical equipment, as well as consideration on specific issues under development. DENMARK remarked some typing/editorial errors in the report, as wrong references, etc. Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) would send a revised report. Ms Poidevin (CEN/CENELEC) announced that the CEN Technical Committee 270 on Internal Combustion Engines would be re-activated by September 2012, to deal with revision of standards EN , EN and others. Update on substantial changes in the State of the Art and Harmonised Standards Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) noted that this point has been already dealt with in the previous reports EN 1834 Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Safety requirements for design and construction of engines for use in potentially explosive atmospheres 160 EN Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Safety - Part 1: Compression ignition engines 280

281 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 Update on a proposal on "International legal requirements for explosion protection" submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the latest news, from the meeting held in Dubai (United Arab Emirates) on March 2012, in the framework of the IECEx International Conference on Equipment and Services in Explosive Atmospheres. EU legislative system in the sector was considered as a reference, for Middle East countries as for Russia (Custom Union) and others, but also with elements of weakness, as the effectiveness of the Market Surveillance activities and resources. The next meeting (7 th ) of the SIEEE would take place in Calgary (Canada) on 3 September 2012, to summarize past and present activities, and to discuss a plan of action for 2013; then, the next IECEx event would be held in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in All the related information would be available as usual on the UNECE WP.6 website Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee and other valid CS Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that no further noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been added to the relevant ATEX website 162. Update on current issues Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chair) had communicated that he was not able to come to the meeting, having nothing special to report. For information, the next ExNBG meeting would be held in Brussels on November New NLF aligned ATEX Directive Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) reported on the latest developments on the alignment of the ATEX Directive to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 163, in the Council and the Parliament. Current discussions were focused both on "horizontal" (those affecting all the 9 Directives in the package) and "vertical" (for each Directive) issues: in particular, among the most relevant for the ATEX Directive, horizontal issues were related to the definition of "make available on the market / placing on the market / putting into service" for the set of obligations of manufacturers, importers and distributors; the language of instructions and other relevant documents; and the transitional period and related provisions. Vertical issues were related to consideration of "components" under the scope of the Directive, and the "εx marking" alongside the CE marking. These and other minor pending issues should be clarified according to the foreseen timeframe, in order to have a positive outcome of the alignment exercise within the end of 2012 or beginning of

282 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31), as Vice-Chair of the ExNBG, recalled discussion among Notified Bodies about the transitional period, asking for a longer time, taking into consideration the need of conversion of certificates, adaptation of documentation, etc. AUSTRIA observed that Market Surveillance authorities in Member States had the responsibility on several directives, products and economic operators, but they should be able to take the necessary transitional action in 2 years. Mr Bonelli (CECOD), as representative of a manufacturer association, thought that the Commission had to maintain the text of Art. 40 of the final Proposal (Doc. ATEX_WG/12/1/12), then keeping the transitional period in 2 years, being sufficient for manufacturers, as no work had to be performed by Notified Bodies. Otherwise, if certificates issued according Art. 8 of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC would expire 2 years after the entry into force of the new directive, CECOD thought that the time needed to Member States and Notified Bodies to complete all the procedures would be too short to allow the re-issuing on time of all old certificates. Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed the active role of the Commission services in the alignment exercise, even if the final decision would be taken by the Parliament and the Council, and their members. 8. Interfaces ATEX "product" 94/9/EC and "workplace" Directives 1999/92/EC Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) said that Mr Herbillon, in charge of the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC in Commission's DG Employment, was not able to attend the meeting, but he sent a paper with information for the Members of the ATEX WG on the on-going activities related to standardisation in the field of workers protection and occupation health and safety at work (OSH). This was currently in the observation phase, in view of final evaluation, assessment and a final report expected within The report would be made available on CIRCABC. Further work on interfaces between the ATEX Directives would be developed in the framework of the alignment exercise and the draft of the new restructured ATEX Guidelines. 9. Any other business No any other business. 10. Next meeting date Mr Gabrielli Cossellu (Commission) confirmed what Mr Girão (Chairperson) had announced at the ATEX Standing Committee meeting, on the new regime of the ATEX working parties according to the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (TFUE). The Committee as such would disappear and the Working Group would be considered as "Experts Working Group". New Rules of Procedures according to this new legal configuration would be drafted, in order to be applied for future meetings. By a practical point of view, no relevant change would take place in the work and outputs of the Group, continuing to discuss interpretation and application questions, standardisation issues etc. and producing guidance documents (Guidelines and Consideration Papers); but it should be taken into consideration that all the agendas and working documents would be made available to the public on the Internet, as requested by the European Parliament for the 282

283 XXVII. 12 JULY 2012 sake of full transparency. The way to publicly present the results of discussions (minutes, etc.) should be conveniently adapted. According to that, the next meeting under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC, configured as ATEX Experts Working Group, would be planned to take place in Brussels in January Exact date and confirmation would be communicated in due time. 283

284 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Resources Based, Manufacturing and Consumer Goods Industries Engineering Industries ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 19 February 2013 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM ENTR/F5) COMM Participants: Mr Michael DODDS, Ms Nathalie BOUTTEFEUX, Ms Eva LEFEVBRE-FOLTYNOVA (ENTR/F5) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/02 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 12 July 2012 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 12 July The draft minutes were approved. 3. Communications on current issues: legislation, website, organisation, etc. The Chairperson reported on current issues on ATEX-related legislation, in particular on the new Regulation 1015/2012 on European standardisation and the Commission Proposal for a Regulation on product safety and market surveillance. He mentioned also the new lay-out, addition and update of contents of the EUROPA website on ATEX, underlining the publication of the 4 th Edition of the ATEX Guidelines (September 2012). Finally, in the framework of a re-organization of Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry of the Commission, the Chairperson announced that the Unit in charge of the 284

285 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 sector had been renamed as F/5 Engineering Industry and that Mr Michael DODDS had been designated as Deputy Policy Officer for ATEX. 4. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation IRELAND (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the last Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 19 th ) held in Brussels on 18 th February As usual, according to the Agenda and the associated documents, the main points discussed had included market surveillance activities and procedures, information exchange issues for the Member States authorities, technical and legal issues related to placement on the market of specific equipment, standardisation issues, international developments, etc. Some of the points on the agenda of the ATEX Working Group had been discussed also at the AdCo meeting, in particular those related to interpretation and application questions of the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC. Documents and full reports on the AdCo meeting would be made available as soon as possible on the new ATEX AdCo Interest Group on CIRCABC Directive 94/9/EC: Interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/03 The Chairperson confirmed that the Borderline list - ATEX products as approved at the ATEX WG meeting on 12 July 2012 as the document tabled in the Agenda had been added to the new edition of the ATEX Guidelines (4 th Edition, September 2012). IRELAND presented a new version of list as revised after the ATEX AdCo meeting on 18 February Proposed changes concerned the inclusion of Initiator devices for explosion protective equipment systems (i.e. suppression systems/triggering, under the scope of the Directive as Protective systems, removing it from Safety, controlling or regulating devices. The Chairperson suggested that IRELAND would submit the latest version of the list as revised by the ATEX AdCo Group, as well as with any other contribution from the Working Group members, to the next ATEX WG meeting, in order to provide with enough time for analysis and discussion. This was agreed. Action I IE to submit the latest version of the list as revised by the ATEX AdCo Group to be tabled and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Clarification on Hammers as simple products (ATEX Guidelines and Borderline list) Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/04 The Chairperson introduced a paper proposing a question from some manufacturers, concerning the consideration of hammers as hand tools considered among simple products with no own source of ignition, so out of the scope of the ATEX Directive. As

286 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 there are in international markets hand tools manufactured with specific materials claiming for ATEX conformity, it would be necessary to better clarify the situation in the ATEX Guidelines. GERMANY said that the texts in ATEX Guidelines and Borderline list were quite clear on the consideration of those hammers not in the scope of the Directive. It would be better not opening a door for an approval procedure for simple tools. POLAND and FRANCE agreed with GERMANY. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) recalled the difference between products with their own ignition systems, to be ATEX-certificated, and other items which could create heated surfaces. CROATIA thought that it could be a problem of terminology, and that it would be better to change definitions for those products. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on keeping the current situation on hammers and other simple products, with no need to modify the contents of the ATEX Guidelines. In any case it would be necessary to check the situation in order to prevent any possible misuse/abuse of ATEX terminology. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 IRELAND said that the paper had been discussed and revised by the ATEX AdCo Group, adding some comments. A new version would be submitted at the next ATEW WG meeting. Action II IE to submit a new version of the paper as revised by the ATEX AdCo Group to be tabled and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/05 The Chairperson presented a proposal to include the main contents of the document from the UNITED KINGDOM into the Consideration Paper on Certificates and CE marking without the name of the original manufacturer 165, regarding in particular the point Case 3: Second EC-type certificate in a second manufacturer's name. FRANCE appreciated the paper, including the different parts and certificates involved. It could be useful to better define when certificates would be requested and issued, on the basis of the agreement between A and B. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) said that they had experiences with this kind of procedure, between manufacturers and agents, with specific intervention of Notified Bodies issuing certificates, with the same product but different names when placed on the market. The original manufacturer had to take into consideration the possible evolutions of the product, with specific obligations for the agent for information and updates. The Chairperson asked to receive written comments on the paper, before the 1 st of June, in time to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting in July Action III ALL to send written comments on the paper proposed by COMM before the 1 st of June, for discussion at the next ATEW WG meeting in July

287 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 Equipment used in offshore oil and gas industry The Chairperson reported on the latest developments on the issue. A specific study on the possible options to take regarding the three Directives involved (Machinery 2006/42/EC, Pressure Equipment 97/23/EC and ATEX 94/9/EC) was going to be launched, after some modification in technical specification, to be developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. On the contrary, there was no news concerning the Mandate issued to the European Standardisation Organisations. Location of technical files Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/09 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper with a question on the holding of technical files for non-electrical equipment of Category 2, in order to clarify some aspects related to compliance with the requirements of Article 8(n)(ii) of the ATEX Directive, when the file was retained by a Notified Body based outside the European Union. FRANCE said that the file retention certificate should be issued by a Notified Body based in the EU, being notified as such within the EU 166 ; an extra-eu body could not be entitled to do so. If it would be just a matter of physical location, the Notified Body should keep immediate access to the file in any case. GERMANY thought that the technical file most of it in paper support, rather than electronic should be located in the EU; otherwise it would be unacceptable. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) agreed on the need to have the file located in the Notified Body based in the EU, in the territory of a Member State. But regarding the composition of the technical file, there were usually included several electronic documents, for higher flexibility and even security in case of fire, and only when required they could be issued also in paper form. IRELAND also underlined the increasing importance of electronic means in the technical file. The question of accessibility should be considered critical, when a reasonably immediate access could be problematic. FRANCE evidenced two different subjects: regarding location of files received by the Notified Body in paper format, it should be in Europe, as GERMANY said, not in a country where competent authorities of Member States would have no authority to intervene; for electronic format, they could be everywhere, proving an immediate access. GERMANY agreed with FRANCE. The Chairperson summarised the question noting the general agreement on the need to ensure physical location of technical files at a Notified Body located in the EU; the file retention receipt/certificate should be issued by the Notified Body itself, not in the name of. Format of the Declaration of Conformity The UNITED KINGDOM proposed a question related to the format of the instructions (paper or electronic), not to re-open the discussion, but to ask whether the preference for the paper form should be considered extended also to the Declaration of Conformity, rather than other electronic means. 166 See the Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach ( Blue Guide ),

288 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 The Chairperson confirmed that also for the Declaration of Conformity, paper support was to be considered preferred to other means, as for the technical documentation and instructions, taking into consideration the same aspects on accessibility and availability. The question would be considered also in view of drafting of the new ATEX Guidelines. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards The Chairperson informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been recently published on the OJEU on 12 February 2013, as indicated on the relevant EUROPA webpage 167. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/06 Mr Radandt (CEN TC 305) presented a written report on the activities of CEN Technical Committee 305, on behalf of Mr Von Hoegen, who was still in charge of the Secretariat, but he would move to another company, being replaced by Ms Sachtleben. In addition to the contents of the report, he announced that TC 305 had been revising its business plan, now with a new title: Non-electrical equipment and protective systems for potentially explosive atmospheres. It would cover not only equipment in but also for potentially explosive atmospheres, in line with international standardisation. Ms Sachtleben (CEN TC 305) introduced herself as the new Secretary of the Technical Committee. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally reported on the activities of CENELEC Technical Committee 31, in particular on the latest developments regarding the new edition of standard EN Discussions were still undergoing, with no clear outcome yet. The 2012 version had been published by CENELEC in August 2012 and it should replace the previous 2009 version, but it was not harmonised yet, due to some specific problems in Annex Z. A project of amendment was under development. Another standard under development was the new EN , involving very technical aspects related to flameproof joints, metal flanges, control etc. Different opinions had been produced in various directions and a further meeting would take place before Easter this year. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/08 Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented a written report on his activities in the second semester Among the other issues, he underlined questions on eco EN Explosive atmospheres - Part 0: Equipment - General requirements (IEC ) 169 EN Explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures d (IEC ) 288

289 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 design and internal combustion engines for explosive atmospheres, with specific standards for diesel engines, as the on-going review of EN series. GERMANY asked for more information on ISO standards and the influence of the European Consultant. BELGIUM observed that it would possible for members of National Committees to participate to international standardisation activities. Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) answered that the Consultant as such could not participate to those international fora, not being in the contract with CEN/CENELEC and the European Commission. Influence on international standardisation would be rather indirect, in the framework of Vienna and Dresden Agreements. Compromises could be reached for agreements on ISO/IEC standards. Update on a proposal on "International legal requirements for explosion protection" submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the latest news on the issue. There were no changes in the UNECE WP.6 website 171 from most recent meetings in Dubai and Calgary. A meeting between EU and Russian-Custom Union delegations took place last year to discuss on case-law and good practices sharing, in view to produce a joint paper, as well as recommendations for next generation of ATEX products. Some specifically interesting topics were related to non-electrical equipment and protection systems, personal technical qualifications, joint registration, etc. Next meetings on these issues would take place in Brussels (EU-Russia) and Latin America (SIEEE). 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee and other valid CS The Chairperson said that no further noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been added to the relevant ATEX website 172. Update on current issues Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chair) orally reported on the latest meeting of the European ATEX Notified Bodies Group (ExNBG) on November 2012 in Brussels, developing activities through three working groups, drafting and approval of Clarification Sheets, discussing the current situation of directives, standards and other rules, etc. The next meeting would take place in November New NLF aligned ATEX Directive The Chairperson briefly reported on the latest developments on the alignment of the ATEX Directive to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 173, in the final stage of the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Parliament and the Council. In addition to 170 EN 1834 Reciprocating internal combustion engines - Safety requirements for design and construction of engines for use in potentially explosive atmospheres

290 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 discussions still on-going on a number of horizontal issues affecting all the 9 Directive in the alignment package, there were also specific issues regarding to the ATEX Directive: in particular, main discussion points concerned the improvement of consideration of components in the Directive, the CE marking and other markings, definitions and obligations for economic operators and the concepts of putting into service and manufacturing for own use, with active contribution from several Member States delegations; the Commission services were also participating to discussions in order to keep the right scope of the exercise. A final agreement should be reached at the Technical Harmonisation WP in the Council, at their meeting on 21 February 2013, and then the text within the alignment package should be transmitted to the Parliament. It is possible to foreseen the final adoption within the first quarter of this year 2013; after a two-year transitional period, the new ATEX Directive should became applicable as by middle Specific guidance will be provided by the Commission in order to make such transition as much smooth and efficient as possible. When the new test of the Directive would be available, it would be possible to launch a common work to draft the new adapted ATEX Guidelines. Validity of EU Type-Examination Certificates and EU Declarations of Conformity under the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/08 Ms Piccinni (ORGALIME) introduced a draft Guidance Paper on Validity of EU Type-Examination Certificates and EU Declarations of Conformity under the ATEX Directive, concerning the situation of products and their certificates when changes in harmonised standards take place. The European manufacturer organisation proposed some guidance on the matter, taking into consideration different possible situations with regard to changes in the state of the art, in order to facilitate the adaptation of manufacturers (of ATEX but also under other directives) to the principles of the New Legislative Framework. They asked for the opinion of the Group on the paper. DENMARK asked for clarification on certification without intervention of a Notified Body. GERMANY thought on possible additions to the current ATEX Guidelines and Consideration Papers. FRANCE mentioned a document drafted in co-operation with ORGALIME and CEN by the working group 0814; the paper was prepared to collect opinions. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) mentioned possible problems of conflicts with old standards and issued Declaration of Conformity and the need to justify keeping them, when new standards were produced. Mr Bonelli (CECOD) recalled that there were some resolutions of the Notified Body Group on the matter, as the Clarification Sheets 10/389 and 10/397, proposing solutions to specific situations as mentioned by Mr Sinclair. The Chairperson recognised the paper and useful and invited the Members to address their questions and suggestions for improvement to ORGALIME. 8. Interfaces ATEX product 94/9/EC and workplace Directives 1999/92/EC The Chairperson reported on the latest developments on contacts with the services of DG Employment in charge of the dossier. The reference person has retired now, so a new appointment would be expected soon. In any case, the questions related to interfaces between the ATEX Directives would be dealt with when the work for drafting the new 290

291 XXVIII. 19 FEBRUARY 2013 ATEX Guidelines would be launched, taking into due consideration operative aspects of both directives. 9. Any other business No any other business. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Experts Working Group meeting was planned to take place in Brussels on 10 July Exact date and confirmation would be communicated in due time, probably in May. 291

292 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Resources Based, Manufacturing and Consumer Goods Industries Engineering Industries ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 10 July 2013 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Experts Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM ENTR/F5) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Felicia STOICA, Ms Nathalie BOUTTEFEUX, Ms Magdalena MODER (ENTR/F5) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 19 February 2013 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the last ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 19 February The NETHERLANDS thought that the point on Location of technical files (page 4) was to be improved regarding issuing of file retention certificates by extra-ue bodies. The relevant contents of the Blue Guide 174 should be taken into consideration there, being a horizontal question for New Approach directives. DENMARK reaffirmed that the certificate should be issued by the Notified Body as such, and branches located outside the European Union should respect the implementing requirements for the activities of Notified Bodies. In any case the question should be submitted to the Internal Market (IMP) Group, to check the applicable horizontal rules. GERMANY recalled the need to have the documents located in the EU territory. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) agreed on the need to improve the minutes, to clarify the role and conditions of Notified Bodies, also taking into consideration the applicable horizontal rules. The question would be better developed and clarified in the new ATEX Guidelines. 174 Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach: 292

293 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 With the pending improvement in point 5.6 Location of technical files, the draft minutes were approved. Action I COMM to improve point 5.6 Location of technical files of the minutes, taking into consideration the Blue Guide and the applicable horizontal rules. 3. Communications on current issues: legislation, website, organisation Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) reported on current issues and new elements on ATEX-related legislation, the EUROPA website and the internal organisation of the Unit in charge of the sector. Implications of new horizontal legislation for the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/03 The Chairperson presented a document on Implications of new horizontal legislation for the ATEX Directive drafted for information purposes, focusing on the Regulation 1025/2012 on European Standardisation and on the Proposals for Regulations on Market Surveillance and on Consumer Product Safety (with more limited impact on ATEX). Moreover, a new regime for comitology issues would be implemented also for ATEX, according to the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of Implementing Acts and Delegated acts: this would be reflected in new rules of procedures for the Committees. In particular, new rules of procedures for the ATEX Committee would reaffirm its specific rules on participation only for Member States representatives and would assume a role in implementing acts, related for example to the activities of Notified Bodies, safeguard clauses, etc. As such, Committees could create a Working Group, and the current situation would continue to be operated without any substantial change. The ATEX Committee (no longer Standing Committee ) would be established to assist the Commission to adopt implementing acts when necessary, and it would create an ATEX Working Group to discuss the questions related to the implementation of the Directive. The Committee and the Working Group would have their respective Rules of Procedure, which would be drafted according to the final approval of the text of the new ATEX Directive. IRELAND asked for more information on the role of Administrative Co-operation (AdCo) groups in light of the new legislation. The Chairperson explained that the proposal for a Regulation on market surveillance of products would establish a European Market Surveillance Forum and the AdCo groups could be considered as sub-fora of the EMSF, with a formal legal basis: this would be a clear advantage also by a financial point of view, approaching to Committees and Working Groups in terms of reimbursement of travel expenses for participation, etc. But by an operative point of view, it would be basically the same. BELGIUM inquired on possible similarities and differences between Committees, Working Groups and Expert Groups, in different directives. The Chairperson answered that in principle Committees would be devoted to assist the Commission for implementing acts; sub-groups as Working Groups or Expert Groups could be created as wider references to discuss broader or all the aspects related to the practical implementation of directives. The specific procedures to create such subgroups, their composition and operation etc. were still under discussion (Parliament, Council and Commission) but they would be basically the same of the current Working 293

294 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Groups. Further information would be made available as soon as possible, also through CIRCABC, when the final agreements on the New Legislative Framework alignment package would be reached and the new legislation adopted. Accordingly, new updated Rules of Procedures would be drafted in incoming months, to be submitted to the next working parties meetings in 2014 for discussion and approval. 4. New NLF-aligned ATEX Directive: Update The Chairperson reported on the latest developments on the new ATEX Directive aligned to the provisions of the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 175, in the very final stage of the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Parliament and the Council. As already mentioned, some horizontal aspects mainly related to Committees were still to be clarified, but the substantial contents of the new text have been already agreed. After the necessary steps to have the definitive text fixed and translated into all the EU official languages, the final adoption of the new ATEX Directive within the NLF alignment package would take place by the end of this year 2013; after a two-year transitional period, the new ATEX Directive should became applicable as by the end of Specific guidance will be provided by the Commission in order to make such transition as much smooth and efficient as possible. When the text of the new ATEX Directive is available, it will be possible to launch a common work to draft the new adapted ATEX Guidelines. SWEDEN asked for information regarding the need of re-appointing Notified Bodies under the new Directive. The Chairperson said that a re-notification could be necessary, applying the more stringent criteria stated in the new Directive, and also with regard to the possibility for Member States to raise objections to Notified Bodies. Probably a cleaning-up exercise would be carried out, where not all the Notified Bodies should be necessarily re-notified. GERMANY recalled the need to have more harmonised formats for notification in the NANDO system for the different directives involved, in order to have common indications on the basic characteristics as well as in the details of the notification itself and the activities of Notified Bodies. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) said that the Commission was aware of the question, with the associated difficulties to have a real common presentation of Notified Bodies in NANDO taking into consideration the wide number and range of directives. The relevant services were dealing with it. 5. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation IRELAND (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the last Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 20 th ) held in Dublin on June 2013 in Dublin. Member States representatives from national competent authorities had dealt as usual with a number of issues related to market surveillance activities and procedures, information exchanges, technical and legal issues related to placement on the market of specific equipment, standardisation issues, international developments, etc. The main interpretation and application questions on the ATEX Directive were to be reported to the ATEX WG meeting, in particular concerning the improvement of the Borderline List

295 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Documents and full reports on the AdCo meeting would be made available as soon as possible on the ATEX AdCo Interest Group on CIRCABC Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/04 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) introduced the document which included suggested revisions and improvements following the ATEX AdCo meeting on June 2013, on the basis of the latest version published in the ATEX Guidelines. IRELAND explained the content of the proposed changes, with the addition of an item under Equipment on Refrigerators and storage cabinets for volatile substances after suggestion by the UK and, under Protective systems, on Explosion suppression systems and on Power transmission belts or belt drives. POLAND thought that only belt drives should be included there, as the other elements would not concern spark ignition. Moreover, it should be considered under components, not protective systems. GERMANY agreed with POLAND on the problematic consideration of belt drives. They were used to transform energy and could be regarded as non-electrical. Deeper discussions should be carried out on the question. The NETHERLANDS asked for clarification about devices controlling the regular safety limits, considered not in the scope of the Directive, but the picture and the text were not enough clear, envisaging electrical parts there. This should be better explained. GERMANY answered that safety devices were not necessarily for equipment, and that discussions had been carried out in the past on the same point. FRANCE added that those elements were not to be considered as electrical part in terms of safety devices in the meaning of the ATEX Directive and risks of explosion, temperature, etc. In the comment, there was a specific reference to safety devices with respect to risks other than ignition hazards, being outside the scope. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) noted the general agreement on the inclusion of the points on Refrigerators and on Explosion suppression systems into the list, but still different opinions on the other suggested changes. An updated ATEX Borderline list including the agreed changes would be inserted into the ATEX Guidelines and uploaded on the EUROPA website, when the other point would be further discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Regarding the point on Devices controlling the regular safety limits, he invited those present to submit written contributions for any further clarification needed. Action II COMM to insert the updated version of the Borderline list - ATEX products, including the point on Refrigerators and storage cabinets for volatile substances and modifying the point on Explosion suppression systems into the ATEX Guidelines and to publish it on the EUROPA website. Action III ALL to provide written contributions on the issues still under discussion, in particular regarding Power transmission belt or belt drives and Devices controlling the regular safety limits, to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting

296 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/05 IRELAND presented a revised version of the proposal already submitted in previous meetings, taking into consideration a number of remarks from the AdCo Group and Working Group. POLAND considered, in point 5 of Devices outside the scope of Article 1.2, that the expression some additional (*) control with the note on additional control should be explained better, by adding a reference to not relevant controls. They would send a written contribution on this. The NETHERLANDS welcomed the new version of the document, just pointing out that, in the second example for Devices in the scope of Article 1.2, the expression from time to time could be potentially contradictory with the situation of turbine pumps. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) remarked the usual specific categorization for submerged turbine pumps, not allowing pump drives. GERMANY thought that the consideration of submerged pumps would be a problem with several possible solutions; the offered in the paper was just a possible solution but not the only one. IRELAND agreed on the possibility to carry out some slight changes on the document, according to the comments of the WG Members. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) noted that some WG Members announced written comments, so he invited IRELAND to prepare a revised version with those contributions to be discussed at the next WG meeting. Action IV ALL to send written comments and contribution to IE to improve the paper. IE to submit a new version of the paper on the basis of written comments received, to be further discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/05 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) asked for acceptance of the revised version of the Case 3 of the Consideration Paper dealing with Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents. POLAND suggested, for the diagram, to connect with a dotted line between Notified Bodies NB1 and NB2: they could not work separately. Otherwise, misunderstandings and problems could be possible between economic operators. The NETHERLANDS agreed on similar suggestion. A sentence like NB2 must inform NB1 should be added. Other details on the document could be improved, for example to better clarify the concepts of quality management and product assessment. GERMANY also considered that a link between NB1 and NB2 could be necessary, even maybe not in all cases: it would depend on specific circumstances. FRANCE thought that the question of relationship between the original manufacturer and the trade agent (not the real manufacturer) should involve some kind of agreement regarding product delivery, declaration of conformity, etc. The Notified Body would need just to check the product manufactured, considering the trade agent in a similar way as a subcontractor of the real (original) manufacturer. GERMANY pointed out possible problems coming from the terms used and translations. 296

297 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) agreed on the need to be very accurate and rigorous when defining terms and roles of parties involved in these operations, and on further room for improvement of the document. He asked the WG Members to provide written comments in order to reach a final agreed version at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action V ALL to send written comments on the paper in view of reaching a final agreement at the next ATEX WG meeting. Equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) confirmed that a study on the possible options to take regarding the three Directives involved (Machinery 2006/42/EC, Pressure Equipment 97/23/EC and ATEX 94/9/EC) would be developed by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission as by the end of Further details would be provided in due time. ATEX and Non-Road Mobile Machinery Directive The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a question on possible problems regarding the on-going revision of the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive 97/68/EC 177 and its consequence regarding specific equipment under the ATEX Directive. In fact, the possible introduction of new emission requirements there could have an impact on manufacturers and convertors of, for example, fork lift trucks for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. The new emission requirements mean that exhaust gas treatment such as particulate filters and Adblu nitrous oxide treatments would be needed to enable diesel engines to comply; but since these get hot in operation, they would be unsuitable for use in an ATEX environment. This would make necessary to check the situation with the Commission services in charge of the NRMM Directive, whether it might be possible to add an exclusion from the emission requirements of the NRMM Directive for ATEX equipment. Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) recalled that he mentioned the question of Reciprocation internal combustion engines for explosive atmospheres in his report to the ATEX WG meeting on 19 February 2013, concerning the revision of EN 1834 series, and proposing to consider particular cases of exemption in the on-going revision of Directive 97/68/EC. The Chairperson explained that the NRMM Directive 97/68/EC was in charge of the Automotive Unit in the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry and the responsible persons would be contacted in order to discuss the issue and to search for an acceptable solution for these potential problems. The Commission services took on board the comments expressed so far and would report on that at the next meeting; in the meantime, further comments and contributions would be welcome. Action VI COMM to check the situation and to discuss on possible solutions with the persons in charge of the NRMM Directive 97/68/EC and to report at the next ATEX WG meeting. Motor protection for Category 3 motors Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/

298 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 DENMARK introduced a question from the Danish mirror ATEX standardisation committee regarding motor protection for category 3 motors, whether they would be covered by the ATEX Directive. This would be related to definition of terms and concepts in the ATEX Directive and in standards, concerning normal operation and motor protections. GERMANY considered that standardisation experts should provide an answer to such questions, in particular Working Group 27 in charge of this area. It would depend on the duty type of the equipment. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) said that its Technical Committee could deal with the question, but it would be difficult to provide a clear answer: it would be very much a matter related to manufacturing and the use of the equipment, the particular situation in which it is working. It would be also necessary to be very careful with zoning, 21 or 22, as well as with the operative life related to installation and categorization. DENMARK underlined the need to make reference to standards dealing with duty cycles description. GERMANY mentioned the standard IEC in which duty types were described. Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) also mentioned IEC definitions of duty type and duty cycle in the Electropedia international vocabulary 179. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) reported the discussion to the next ATEX WG meeting with further information on concerned standards in order to reach a common agreement on explanation and answers to the question raised by DENMARK. Action VII ALL to prepare specific contributions and reports for the next ATEX WG meeting. Equipment and component according to Directive 94/9/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/10 GERMANY introduced a paper concerning delimitation of equipment and component according to Directive 94/9/EC, also for users. On the basis of comparison of the basic characteristics of equipment and component, they pointed out some controversial cases where equipment or components should be used according to special conditions indicated by manufacturers, with not always clear possibility to fulfil the applicable safety requirements. The question had been discussed in the ATEX AdCo Group and it should be further analysed by all concerned parties, including in particular the European Group of ATEX Notified Bodies (ExNBG), in view to re-draft the document as a guidance paper (Consideration Paper) to be discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. It would be not just a formal issue but also a safety-related issue in some cases, when special knowledge would be requested to use a component, and this could create safety problems. Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) mentioned discussions in the UK Shadow Committee 31 about different definitions for components between the Directive and some standards. It would not be a matter of legal review, but it could be necessary to ask Notified Bodies to check the question and to provide contributions to reach a common understanding. Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) would also check those definitions in European and international standards. 178 IEC :2010 Rotating electrical machines - Part 1: Rating and performance

299 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) noted the agreement on re-draft the German document as a Consideration Paper, with direct co-operation between GERMANY and the European Coordination of ATEX Notified Bodies (ExNBG) at their meeting in November The results would be presented and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action VIII GERMANY and EXNBG to co-operate to re-draft the document as a Consideration Paper, to be presented and discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. 7. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been recently published on the OJEU on 4 May 2013, as indicated on the EUROPA webpage 180. As by July 2013, the new lists would include also the Croatian version of references of harmonised standards. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/06 Ms Sachtleben (CEN TC 305) presented the intermediate report of the Secretariat on activities of CEN/TC 305 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Explosion prevention and protection. As usual, it included a list of organisational references, plenary meetings, published European Standards and CEN Technical Reports, as well as the work carried out on regular review of standards and within international standardisation. The NETHERLANDS asked for more information on the list in point 7 Regular review of standards, regarding ISO standards. Ms Sachtleben (CEN TC 305) answered that she would search for more information on the point. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Mr Sinclair (CENELEC TC 31) orally reported on the recent activities of CENELEC Technical Committee 31. Most of the work was related to confirmation of standards produced at international level, not so many as in CEN TC 305. He announced the agreement on the new text of the standard EN , including further changes, also in view of the German paper on components. It would be published as soon as possible. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/08 Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) presented the report of the ATEX Consultant in the first semester 2013, including detailed information on assessment of standard and standardisation work EN Explosive atmospheres - Part 0: Equipment - General requirements (IEC ) 299

300 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), with no substantial news or activities. At the beginning of September 2013, a presentation event of SIEEE would take place in Fortaleza (Brazil). As usual, updated information could be found on the UNECE WP.6 website Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) said that no further noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been added to the relevant ATEX website 183. Update on current issues Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chairperson) confirmed that the next ExNBG meeting would take place in Brussels on November 2013, including on the Agenda also the latest inputs from the ATEX Working Group. References of Notified Bodies in NANDO and CIRCABC Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) said that, as already done in other Directives, it would be necessary to check the references of Notified Bodies on the NANDO database and on CIRCABC, with the aim to have a better matching between the two systems: in fact, all the Notified Bodies included on NANDO should have at least one representative on CIRCABC, to ensure the necessary information and participation. The results of this exercise would be reported to the relevant parties: EU Member States notifying authorities and EXNBG Chairperson, Technical Secretariat and Administrative Secretariat. 9. Interfaces ATEX product 94/9/EC and workplace Directives 1999/92/EC Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (EC) reported no news, confirming that the relevant issues will be dealt with in the new ATEX Guidelines, taking into due consideration operative aspects of both directives. 10. Any other business No further issues have been proposed for discussion. 11. Next meeting date

301 XXIX. 10 JULY 2013 The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting was planned to take place in Brussels in February Exact date and confirmation would be sent to all the members in due time, probably in December

302 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Resources Based, Manufacturing and Consumer Goods Industries Engineering Industries ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 26 February 2014 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM ENTR/F5) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Felicia STOICA, Ms Nathalie BOUTTEFEUX (ENTR/F5) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft minutes of the last meeting on 10 July 2013 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft minutes of the latest ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 10 July With no comments, the draft minutes were approved. 3. Communications on current issues Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) reported on new elements on the ATEX website on EUROPA, in particular regarding the December 2013 update of the ATEX Guidelines 184, with the Borderline list as approved in July 2013; the list of updates of the ATEX Guidance documents until ; and the consolidated minutes of the meetings of the ATEX Working Group until

303 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY Approved text of the new NLF-aligned ATEX Directive 2014/../EU Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/08 The Chairperson announced that the text of the new ATEX Directive, aligned to the New Legislative Framework (NLF) 187, had been approved by the European Parliament on 5 February 2014, and published on the EP website 188. It still needed to be formally approved by the Council and afterwards, published on the Official Journal of the European Union, probably in March A two-year transition period was foreseen, before the new Directive 2014/../EC would become applicable in Specific horizontal guidance would be provided by the Commission in order to make such transition as much smooth and efficient as possible for the Directive included in the alignment package. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled a number of specific elements of the new ATEX Directive already mentioned in previous meetings, regarding definitions and obligations, Notified Bodies and certificates, standardisation and harmonised standards, the new Committee, etc. He also confirmed that, with the text of the new Directive, it would be possible to launch a common work to draft new adapted ATEX Guidelines, convening a small Editorial Group with some members of the Working Group, in a similar way as done for the new Machinery Guide. This should take into consideration also the contents of the new Blue Guide, to be issued soon. Ms Poidevin (CEN) asked for more information on how to deal with standardisation during the transitional period. The Chairperson said that in principle, no new Mandate would be issued in view of the new Directive, but it should be necessary to revise the standards when necessary. The details of the process would need to be further discussed. ITALY agreed on drafting new ATEX Guidelines, also to collect the different documents produced so far by the sectorial experts, as an open document subject to continuous improvement. GERMANY asked for more information regarding the safeguard clause procedure to use, the current one or the new one. The Chairperson answered that at the moment, the current Directive 94/9/EC remained in force; when the new one would become applicable, the new procedure should be used. 5. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation IRELAND (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the latest Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 21 st ) held in Brussels on 25 February Member States representatives from national competent authorities had dealt as usual with a number of issues related to market surveillance activities and procedures, information exchanges, technical and legal issues related to placement on the market of specific equipment, standardisation issues, international developments, etc. Most of the contributions on interpretation and application questions on the ATEX Directive were to be reported to the ATEX WG meeting, as the Borderline list, categorisation of harmonised standards, equipment and components, etc. Documents and full report on the AdCo meeting would be made available as soon as possible on the ATEX AdCo Interest Group on %2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bTA%2b %2bTOC%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN 303

304 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 CIRCABC 189. Finally, he announced the hand-over of the Chairpersonship; it should be taken by GERMANY. The Chairperson thanked IRELAND for their efforts with the ATEX AdCo Chairpersonship during two years. The Commission would continue to support the activities of Administrative Co-operation of Member States authorities in market surveillance. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) confirmed the co-operation of industry with market surveillance authorities, by providing information on uncompliant products. ITALY remarked a point discussed at the AdCo meeting, regarding Classification of ATEX Gearbox and the Italian manufacturer UNIMEC. The Italian representative was not able to attend the meeting, so he expressed support to the position generally agreed there, confirming that mechanical gears were in the scope of the ATEX Directive as nonelectrical equipment, not components, as indicated in the ATEX Guidelines and in the Borderline list: such equipment needed to be CE- and εx-marked, issuing a Declaration of Conformity. But he wanted to underline that the position of the Italian manufacturer was based on good faith and technical considerations similar to the Machinery Directive and the concept of partly completed machinery. The question appeared to be a borderline issue, with possible different interpretation also for other manufacturers. GERMANY said that the question on gearboxes was a good example also for other equipment used with pumps. They clearly support their consideration as equipment, as agreed. 6. Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/03 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) introduced the latest version of the document as approved at the ATEX WG meeting on 10 July 2013 and included in the December 2013 update of the ATEX Guidelines, with some proposals for revision still pending. They referred in particular to Power transmission belt or belt drives and to Devices controlling the regular safety limits. GERMANY wondered why transmission belts were considered as protective systems rather than safety devices. This should be further discussed. POLAND had sent some written comments and confirmed their opinion: in the first column only the words belt drives should remain, the rest should be removed, because transmission belts did not include the spark ignition. DENMARK said that also the point on Devices controlling the regular safety limits needed to be reconsidered. IRELAND agreed with DENMARK, recalling suggestions from the ATEX Consultant as well as from discussions in the AdCo Group. POLAND expressed a comment also on Fire extinguisher, considering that in the fourth column it should be added, after Intended to be used after an explosion : provided that this is not used in the protective systems and It does not refer to automatic extinguishers. GERMANY pointed out that Flame arrestors are indicated as Yes in the scope of 94/9/EC, but in fact they would deal with the effects of an explosion, not about fire protection. The answer should be better clarified

305 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 FRANCE agreed with GERMANY. Protective systems would be against explosions and not against fires. Mr Cloutier (CECOD) said that in petrol pumps, flame arrestors were used to prevent accidents to users. But protection against explosions or fires, this would be an open question, taking into consideration also the condition of installations and other protection systems. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) summarised the points raised and proposed to prepare an updated version of the Borderline list including in particular the Polish comments on Fire extinguisher and Belt drives. At the same time, he invited all the members to provide further contributions on the issues under discussion, as Devices controlling the regular safety limits and Flame arrestors, for the next ATEX WG meeting. Action I COMM to prepare an updated version of the list including the PL comments on Fire extinguisher and Belt drives. ALL to provide further contributions on the issues under discussion, as Devices controlling the regular safety limits and Flame arrestors. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/05 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the question raised by IRELAND and the idea to integrate the reworded contents of 3.10 in the new ATEX Guidelines to be drafted for the new ATEX Directive. IRELAND asked for comments by the WG members in order to draft a new text for the next WG meeting. Action II ALL to send written comments and contributions to IE, to draft a new text to be submitted to the next ATEX WG meeting. Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents Doc. ATEX_WG/13/1/05 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) asked for acceptance of the revised version of the Case 3 of the Consideration Paper dealing with Traceability of quality assurance for Trade Agents, including the suggestion from POLAND: a connection with a dotted line between Notified Bodies NB1 and NB2. The Chairperson noted the general agreement. The new version of the Consideration Paper would be published on the EUROPA website 190. Action III COMM to publish on the EUROPA website the new version of point 3 of the Consideration Paper Certificates and CE marking without the name of the original manufacturer as agreed. Equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry

306 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that the announced study on the possible options to take regarding the three Directives involved (Machinery 2006/42/EC, Pressure Equipment 97/23/EC and ATEX 94/9/EC) was currently under development by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission: the kick-off meeting of the Steering Group took place on 29 January The purpose of the study was to provide the necessary information for the assessment of economic, social, environmental impacts of an extension of the concerned directives to equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry. The tasks to be performed would involve a technical inventory of categories of equipment falling within or out of scope of EU product safety legislation; the collection of economic data from the market, and the assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts, with the related different policy options. The study should be completed by September Ms STOICA (COMM), as the Policy Officer in charge of the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, added that the Commission was working on drafting a mandate to CEN and CENELEC regarding standardisation for offshore equipment, in close cooperation with CEN and other experts. More information on the development of the standardisation work, as well as concerning the study itself, would be provided in due time. Ms Poidevin (CEN) confirmed that they had received the draft mandate focused on standardisation under the Machinery Directive; regarding equipment under ATEX and PED, it could be possible to extend the standardisation work in the future according to the results of the study. ATEX and Non-Road Mobile Machinery Directive Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the question raised by the UNITED KINGDOM on the on-going revision of the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive 97/68/EC 191 and possible consequences on specific equipment under the ATEX Directive. The Commission Proposal was expected to be presented in March 2014 and, during the legislative process, it should be possible to propose possible amendments with the aim to effectively deal with the problem of new emission requirements for equipment to be used in potentially explosive atmospheres. The Commission would continue to follow-up the question. Motor protection for Category 3 motors Docs. ATEX_WG/13/2/09, ATEX_WG/14/1/09 The Chairperson made reference to the questions raised by DENMARK on motor protection for category 3 motors, regarding normal operation and overload conditions. CYPRUS expressed their opinion, considering that an overload of a motor should not be considered a normal operation, making reference to definitions in standards 192, as described in their document. POLAND said that the use of a category 2 motor in zone 2 or 22 would increase the safety level with respect of category 3. The NETHERLANDS agreed with CYPRUS. DENMARK appreciated the consideration for answering no to the basic question, but the follow-up questions needed to be clarified yet, in particular with regard to coverage of motor protection by the scope of the ATEX Directive EN Explosive atmospheres - Part 0: Equipment - General requirements (IEC ) 306

307 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 The NETHERLANDS thought that it should be answered no to both follow-up questions. GERMANY considered that, on the basis of the applicable standards and the specific duty types of motors, the answer to the first follow-up question is no : motor protection in overload condition would not be in the scope of the ATEX Directive. On the second question, when a category 2 motor is used in zone 2 or 22, there would be no need of any additional equipment. DENMARK asked GERMANY and the NETHERLANDS to provide written contributions to explain their positions, in order to reach an agreement on the question at the next ATEX AdCo and WG meetings. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed the need to summarize discussions also with written contributions for the next meetings. Action IV ALL, in particular DE and NL, to send written contributions to DK to summarise their positions, to be further discussed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Equipment and component according to Directive 94/9/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/10 (rev. 1) GERMANY said that the document had been further discussed at the ATEX AdCo meeting on 25 February 2014, so they would prepared a new and clearer version for the next meeting, to be discussed with the members. FRANCE remarked the point on vacuum cleaner and related electrostatic problems, also in the Borderline list. GERMANY confirmed that this point would be also considered in the new version of the paper. Action V DE to submit a new version of the document, including comments from AdCo and WG members, at the next ATEX WG meeting. 7. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) informed that the latest consolidated lists of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 5 November 2013, as indicated on the EUROPA webpage 193. New lists were going to be published in March 2014; they should include also the 2012 version of the standard EN Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/04 Ms Sachtleben (CEN TC 305) presented the February 2014 edition of the intermediate report of the Secretariat on activities of CEN/TC 305 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Explosion prevention and protection

308 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/05 Mr Klausmeyer (CENELEC TC 31) presented the written report drafted by the Chairperson of CENELEC TC 31 (Mr Sinclair, absent), underlining the situation of two standards at finalisation stage. The NETHERLANDS pointed out the very strong opposing opinions regarding EN It should be necessary to check the opinion of the CEN/CENELEC Consultant (absent). Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chairperson) expressed surprise for the first part of the report, with the number of technical issues, and possible differences between IEC and EN versions of standards. This should be clarified. Mr Klausmeyer (CENELEC TC 31) explained that usually there were no troubles for parallel voting procedure, with not very serious differences with the opinion of the Consultant. The standardisation experts always had discussions as much as necessary, being aware of the risk to have conflicting versions or deviations in European standards. They would expect a positive assessment by the Consultant, as there were no real conflicts there. Ms Poidevin (CEN) mentioned the pending problem with the New Approach Consultants, explaining the reason of the absence of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant at the meeting: the lack of agreement between the relevant services of the Commission and of CEN/CENELEC on financing the work of Consultants. Discussions were still on-going; a solution was not envisaged yet. SWEDEN underlined the importance of the work of the Consultants, also in the ATEX sector for its complexity. The problem should be solved as soon as possible, involving the higher levels of the organisations. FRANCE agreed with SWEDEN on the real need of the Consultant in ATEX, also in view of new standards in The Chairperson confirmed the disagreement still existing between CEN/CENELEC and the Commission, but this should be solved soon. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/06 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that Mr Lefebvre (CEN/CENELEC Consultant) was absent but he had sent his written report for the second semester Harmonised standards under ATEX Directive 94/9/EC: proposal for A-B-C categorisation Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/07 SWEDEN introduced a proposal for A-B-C categorisation of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive, in order to clarify the different role and use of standards with regards to the requirements of the Directive and their use. This could be done in a similar way as for the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, where a list of harmonised standards with categorisation and description of A-, B- and C-type standards had been recently published on the OJEU for the first time (28 November 2013). 194 EN Explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures d (IEC ) 308

309 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 The NETHERLANDS considered the proposal interesting, even if the differences between Machinery and ATEX should be taken into consideration, to assess the applicability of the system also in this sector. Ms Poidevin (CEN) said that, according to the opinion of the CEN/CENELEC Consultant, it would be better to follow the structure proposed by CEN TC 305, about terminology and methodology to classify standards. He would report on the on-going work on the question. Mr Huhle (ORGALIME) had not an opinion yet. It could be difficult to have the same categorisation in ATEX as in Machinery, and it would not be clear how it would be useful for manufacturers. The question should be further analysed and discussed. The Chairperson agreed on the need to have in ATEX something similar to Machinery but not exactly, with the specificities of the sector. She asked all the members to send written comments and contributions, for further discussion and follow-up at the next meeting. Action VI ALL to send written comments and contributions for further discussion and follow-up at the next ATEX WG meeting. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), mentioning the new Country Survey carried out in 2013, as indicated on the UNECE WP.6 website 195. A Workshop for regulatory authorities of Latin American countries and BRICs countries on the whole life-cycle approach of IECEx certification schemes for explosive atmospheres was held on September 2013 in Fortaleza (Brazil). The Chairperson thanked GERMANY for the report and confirmed the interest of the Commission to follow-up the work, also for possible synergies in the sector. 8. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that no further noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been added to the relevant ATEX website 196. Update on current issues Mr Thedens (ExNBG Chairperson) reported on the main results of the latest ExNBG meeting held in Brussels on November 2013, dealing with different technical issues coming from the ATEX AdCo and Working Groups as well as from internal WGs and the development of Clarification Sheets. In particular, certification issues had been discussed, regarding possible mutual recognition between ATEX and IECEx, thinking on how it could be possible to co-operate

310 XXX. 26 FEBRUARY 2014 References of Notified Bodies in NANDO and CIRCABC Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed the need to check the references of Notified Bodies on the NANDO database and on CIRCABC, with the aim to have a better matching between the two systems. The results of the exercise would be reported soon. The Chairperson said that, under the new ATEX Directive, it would be necessary to renotify the Notified Bodies, being also an opportunity to improve the quality of their work. 9. Interfaces ATEX product 94/9/EC and workplace Directives 1999/92/EC Question on fuel dispensers Mr Cloutier (CECOD) introduced a presentation on the interaction between 1999/92/EC and 94/9/EC Directive for service stations (gasoline, diesel, LPG), describing a problem related to the applicable requirements, harmonised standards and zoning, and their implementation. The presentation would be distributed to ask for comments and proposals. Ms Poidevin (CEN) said that she will check the point with the relevant Technical Committees. GERMANY appreciated the presentation and said that the question involved national implementation level, not easy to be dealt with the other Member States. The question would be discussed with experts and stakeholders. The Chairperson confirmed that the CECOD presentation would be uploaded on CIRCABC for all the members, and asked to send written comments, to follow-up the question at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action VII ALL to send written comments on the CECOD presentation, to be followed-up at the next ATEX WG meeting. 10. Any other business No further issues have been proposed for discussion. 11. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting was planned to take place in Brussels in July 2014, alongside with the Standing Committee meeting, the same day. Exact date and confirmation would be sent to all the members in due time, probably in May 2014 (8 weeks in advance). 310

311 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SME's Resources Based, Manufacturing and Consumer Goods Industries Engineering Industries ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 8 July 2014 Subject: Directive 94/9/EC Working Group concerning ATEX Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM ENTR/F5) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr Michael DODDS, Ms Elzbieta PAPRZYCKA, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (ENTR/F5) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. She gave brief information on the meeting of the ATEX Committee held just before the ATEX WG meeting: under the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, a new formal ATEX Committee would perform specific tasks related in particular to implementing acts, according to new Rules of Procedure. The ATEX Working Group would be configured as Working Group of the ATEX Committee. In any case, there would no substantial changes in the activities of the ATEX Working Group, with the Member States representatives and the European-wide stakeholders. According to the new legal status, new Rules of Procedure would be drafted also for the Working Group. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/1421/01 rev. 3 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 26 February 2014 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 26 February IRELAND asked for inclusion of the list of attendees into the minutes, as it would be useful for the members. The Chairperson explained that such list could not be published due to rules on data protection. It would be possible only with the consensus of all the participants in each 311

312 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 event, and it would be problematic. The Commission services could communicate the list on request but not as part of the minutes. With no further comments, the draft minutes were approved. 3. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation GERMANY (ATEX AdCo Chair), as the new Chair of the AdCo group, reported on the latest Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 22 nd ), held in Berlin on June As usual, there were a large variety of subjects for discussion, also related to those of the Working Group, in view to enhance cross-cooperation between Member States market surveillance authorities and to ensure consistency and a harmonised approach. Specific discussions had been carried out on improvement of the ATEX Borderline List, the relationship with the Machinery Directive, and other technical issues on fork lift trucks in explosive atmospheres, petrol pumps, torches, category 3 motors, equipment and components, etc. On standardisation, a point was raised regarding the ongoing revision of EN and the level of pressurisation, to involve also the Notified Body group to get more information; and also on classification of hazardous areas of filling stations, related the interface with the ATEX workplace Directive 1999/92/EC and the definition of zones. The relevant working documents and reports on the meeting would be available, as usual, on the ATEX Administrative Co-operation group on CIRCABC 198. CEN-CENELEC asked for more information on the point related to classification of zones and the possible role of standardisation. GERMANY (ATEX AdCo Chair) said that the point on petrol pump was also in the Agenda of the Working Group, and further discussion should be carried out on the possible need to place the use of standards into context in such situations. In any case, for the time being there was no plan to do any formal requirement to CEN on that. 4. New ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU and the new Blue Guide 2014 The Chairperson confirmed that the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU had been published on the OJEU on 29 March ; it would be applicable from 20 April During the transitional period, the Member States should transpose the directive to national legislation, and the relevant economic operators would need to prepare themselves for adaptation to the new rules, even no substantial changes had been made. The Commission services would prepare specific horizontal guidance for the transitional period of the set of NLF-aligned directives, probably as a FAQ documents for the most relevant questions, offering some practical rules. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed that new ATEX Guidelines would be drafted by the Commission with the participation of an editorial group with some members of the ATEX Working Group. He invited the interested members to volunteer for such work, in order to have a first draft by the end of the year 2014, to be submitted and discussed at the next meeting in EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures d (IEC :2007) - FprEN :

313 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 He noted that representatives from DENMARK, GERMANY, the UNITED KINGDOM, CEN-CENELEC and ORGALIME expressed their interest to participate. The editorial group should be configured during the next weeks. The NETHERLANDS and FRANCE asked for more clarification on accreditation and notification of Notified Bodies under the new directive and during the transitional period. The Chairperson said that new notification of Notified Bodies would be a priority task: they should be re-notified under the new directive, when fulfilling the applicable requirements, with no automatic take-over. Member States notifying authorities could already start such new notifications, through the NANDO website (currently being adapted), according to the situation at national level. Requirements could be mostly fulfilled by using standards, but this should be an assessment to be done by the notifying authorities. If an accreditation system was in place, this would facilitate the process. New notifications could already be made but bodies notified under the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU could not issue certificates yet, until the date of applicability of the new directive, 20 April Also the industry could already start to prepare for issuing EU- Declaration of Conformity, but not before that date. CEN-CENELEC asked for information on harmonised standard during the transitional time. The Chairperson explained that legislative references in Annex Z should not be mixed up. References to the old directive should be regarded as to the new directive: no need for formal changes. Lists of references of harmonised standards under the Directive 94/9/EC would continue to be published until the end of 2015 or beginning of 2016; then, a first list under the Directive 2014/34/EU would be published at beginning of 2016, in time for the date of application. FRANCE asked for the question of transposition of the new directive by Member States, the related timeline and practical implementation. The Chairperson recalled the legal references on the question as stated by the directive itself and by the general provisions of the EU internal market on a common date for application. Each Member State could choose its own practical way but they should ensure that the provisions of the new directive could not be applied before the date of 20 April 2016; otherwise, with any earlier application, this would breach the rules of the internal market. FRANCE and ITALY asked for the situation of certificates and declarations of conformity issued before 2016, related to products on the market. The Chairperson confirmed that products placed on the EU market before 2016 would remain under the previous legislation, with their related documents issued in due time. For new ones as by 20 April 2016, a new EU Declaration of Conformity should be issued. Practical indications would be given in the horizontal guidance to be drafted, also with contributions from different interested parties, within the contents of the new Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules recently issued by the Commission. 5. Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/

314 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 GERMANY proposed some changes to the currently published ATEX Borderline list, after discussions at the latest AdCo meeting. On Power transmission belts, they should be placed under Other products, and the example should be rewritten, as it did not fit together with the other products. The Note 2 should be revised too. A new version of the list could be prepared for the next WG meeting. POLAND recalled their written comments already submitted. For Power transmission belt, only the words belt drives should remain: the rest should be removed from the first column because transmission belt did not include spark ignition. For Fire extinguisher, in the fourth column it should be added intended to be used after an explosion provided that this is not use in the protective systems and it does not refer to automatic extinguishers. The Chairperson confirmed that a revised version of the Borderline list, taking into account the latest comments provided, would be discussed at the next WG meeting. Action I DE to provide a revised version of the Borderline list, to be confirmed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Rewording of ATEX Guidelines 3.10: Safety, controlling or regulating devices as defined in Article 1.2 Docs. ATEX_WG/13/2/05, ATEX_WG/13/2/05_1 IRELAND recalled the question exposed in the document. No further input had been provided from the last meeting. CECOD mentioned a suggestion to improve the situation on equipment for safety functions located out of the hazard zone, with remote control. This should add some common sense safety, by ensuring stopping the operation in case of disconnection or malfunctioning. GERMANY considered that there were problems to understand the suggestion, in particular about the terms ATEX function and ATEX arrangement. The NETHERLANDS agreed with GERMANY; in their opinion, the sentence did not give any added value. ORGALIME said that the question on shall operate in a fail safe way should be further discussed. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) suggested to take the Irish document as it was, to be included into the ATEX Guidelines directly into the new edition to be developed still keeping the possibility for further improvement, from CECOD or another members. This was approved. Action II COMM to include the reworded point 3.10 on Safety, controlling or regulating devices into the new ATEX Guidelines. Equipment used in the offshore oil and gas industry Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) provided a short update. The study on the possible options to take regarding the three Directives involved (Machinery 2006/42/EC, Pressure Equipment 97/23/EC and ATEX 94/9/EC) continued under development by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission. An intermediate report should be presented in September

315 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 Motor protection for Category 3 motors Docs. ATEX_WG/13/2/09, ATEX_WG/14/1/09 DENMARK recalled the question that had been discussed also at the latest AdCo meeting, with further contributions from German experts. A proposal for a consensual solution would be based on conditions marking the motor, specifying its duty type. When approved, this could be included into the ATEX Guidelines. GERMANY confirmed that a text with an agreed solution, on a common approach, should be completed shortly. CENELEC TC 31 asked for more information on the question by a standardisation point of view for equipment in category 3. GERMANY explained that the question was about such devices would be covered by the directive or not. Requirements for category 3 had not been reflected in standardisation, this would be a different issue. CENELEC TC 31 said that this would be important for the next standardisation meeting in October The Chairperson agreed on proceeding as indicated by DENMARK and GERMANY, to finalise the document with a proposed answer to the question; then, any possible consequences on standardisation could be considered, in due time. Action III DE to provide a document with consensual solution to the questions raised by DENMARK, to be submitted to the next meetings of CENELEC standardisation (October 2014) and the ATEX WG. Equipment and component according to Directive 94/9/EC Doc. ATEX_WG/13/2/10 (revised) GERMANY presented the revised version of the paper on equipment and components. It had been improved taking into consideration the comments expressed, in view of ensuring terms of language to comply with legal terminology, liability of safety or products, putting into service and specific knowledge for safe use, etc. The changes in the document should have made it clearer, reducing the number of examples and removing the pictures (due to copyright issues). The NETHERLANDS had no objection on the new version of the document. They suggested forwarding it to the Notified Body Group (ExNBG). GERMANY confirmed that ExNBG had discussed the document too, considering in any case that the overall responsibility for products would be for manufacturers. This would be very useful also in view of the application of the new ATEX Directive. FRANCE agreed with GERMANY and recalled that questions related to category 3 equipment would not concern Notified Bodies. The Chairperson thanked those participating in preparing the document and confirmed that it would be made public by integrating its contents into the new ATEX Guidelines. Action IV COMM to integrate the contents of the document into the new ATEX Guidelines. Telecommunications equipment under ATEX: Wi-Fi access point Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/05 315

316 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) presented a paper about a question on telecommunication equipment under the ATEX Directive, in particular wi-fi access points, in order to clarify their situation and possibly to add some guidance to the Borderline list. CENELEC TC 31 considered quite evident that such devices were covered by the ATEX Directive. The NETHERLANDS agreed: such devices to be used in hazardous zone needed to comply with the ATEX Directive not even to be considered as a borderline case. ORGALIME also agreed on this view regarding ATEX. Such equipment would be related also to the Low Voltage Directive. FRANCE pointed out the electrical and electromagnetic characteristics of such devices, as a potential source of ignition. Specific CENELEC standards dealt with different aspects regarding frequency, distance, etc. GERMANY also considered that this kind of product should ensure safety conditions against the risk of explosion. ITALY recalled the approach to be taken, by classifying the zone and using the adequate products there. It would be convenient to see some concrete example. The Chairperson thanked the members for their contributions. The question would be further investigated in order to prepare some practical guidance, to be discussed at the next WG meeting. Action V COMM to follow-up the question and to prepare practical guidance for the next ATEX WG meeting. Control systems and the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/11 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced a paper proposing some questions about the essential health and safety requirements of the ATEX Directive for control systems (Annex II, 1.5.1) and a possible contradiction in the associated standards. This had been discussed at the latest AdCo meeting and the paper had been revised to take account of comments received. The NETHERLANDS considered that compliance with the directive would be the basis to look at the question, as harmonised standards were just a mean to get presumption of conformity: in case of conflicts, the directive should prevail. If requirement could be considered outdated, it should be necessary to revise the directive. DENMARK agreed with the NETHERLANDS. Answer to question 1. was yes : the legal provisions of the directive should apply absolutely, no derogation could be accepted. GERMANY made reference for question 2. to fork lift trucks in potentially explosive atmospheres and the related standards, as well as category 3 equipment and safety devices. It would be necessary to be very clear on the purpose and use of those systems. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) though that the answer to question 1. Should be clearly yes ; to question 2., probably yes too; and to question 3., expert advice should be needed. The UNITED KINGDOM thanked for the helpful comments and would come back with further developments, also with expert advice, for the next WG meeting. Action VI UK to further develop the paper for the next ATEX WG meeting. 316

317 XXXI. 8 JULY Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) informed that the latest consolidated lists of references of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 14 March 2014, as indicated on the EUROPA webpage 201. New publications would depend also on the effective availability of the work carried out by the CEN-CENELEC Consultant, being the current problems still pending to be solved. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/06 CEN TC 305 presented the June 2014 intermediate report of the Secretariat on activities of CEN/TC 305 Potentially explosive atmospheres - Explosion prevention and protection. As usual, the document included the scope and the organisation of the Technical Committee, lists of meetings, published European standards and CEN technical reports as well as the program of work, regular review of standards in 2014 and international cooperation with IEC. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/07 CENELEC TC 31 presented a written report from CLC TC 31 Chairman. He made specific reference to the standard EN , as discussed also at the latest AdCo meeting, regretting the lack of consensus on the level of safety. Then, he reported on other standard under vote at their final steps. Next technical meetings at international level (IEC) would take place in October The UNITED KINGDOM, FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS agreed on further discussion about EN in AdCo also with the opinion of the ATEX Consultant. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on this point. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant No Consultant report was available. Harmonised standards under ATEX Directive 94/9/EC: proposal for A-B-C categorisation Docs. ATEX_WG/14/1/07, ATEX_WG/14/2/10 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) noted the absence of the Swedish representative submitting the proposal. Written comments had been received from the ATEX Consultant, suggesting a possible alternative for grouping sectorial standards. DENMARK underlined that CENELEC standards were not classified yet for Machinery. GERMANY did not see any clear advantage in classifying ATEX harmonised standards in a similar way as for Machinery. ORGALIME and POLAND agreed with GERMANY

318 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 CEN TC 305 and CENELEC TC 31 said that they had not discussed yet the question. The Chairperson said that the point would be reported to the next WG meeting in order to reach a conclusion. If the majority of the group would consider not useful such classification for ATEX harmonised standards, it would not be implemented, as every sector had different characteristics and needs. Further comments and opinion would be welcome. Action VI ALL to send written comments and contributions to reach a conclusion at the next ATEX WG meeting. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported no specific news on the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 202 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). A discussion forum on the question would take place in The Hague (The Netherlands) in August 2014, within the next IECEx system meetings; a Commission representative would participate. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed his participation in the mentioned UNECE/ATEX/IECEx discussion forum Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that no further noted ExNBG Clarification Sheets had been added to the relevant ATEX website 204. Update on current issues Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that no update was provided by the European ATEX Notified Body Group (ExNBG). The next meeting should be held in Brussels in November Interfaces ATEX product 94/9/EC and workplace Directives 1999/92/EC Question on fuel dispensers - Zoning for 1999/92/EC Docs. ATEX_WG/14/1/10, ATEX_WG/14/2/09 CECOD, after the presentation on the interaction between the ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 1999/92/EC and the related standards for service station, offered at the latest WG meeting, introduced a document containing suggestions for Directive 1999/92/EC UNECE/ATEX/IECEx Discussion Forum, The Hague, 27 August 2014:

319 XXXI. 8 JULY 2014 ATEX zoning around gasoline/diesel/lpg and CNG dispensers. It was a document under development, to address some specific problems. GERMANY asked for more clarification on the purpose of the document. CECOD explained that not all the EU countries applied the same rules to the application of the related standards and zoning to service stations. It would not be a question of interference with national provisions, but to make reference to the responsibility of manufacturers on zoning with ATEX equipment. The Chairperson said it could be interesting to follow up the question. Any further question on the issue could be sent directly to CECOD. 9. Any other business No further issues have been proposed for discussion. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting was planned to take place in Brussels at beginning of 2015, probably in January-February. Exact date and confirmation would be sent to all the members in due time. 319

320 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems ATEX 94/9/EC Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 17 February 2015 Subject: ATEX Directive 94/9/EC Working Group Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM GROW/I5) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr Michael DODDS, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (GROW/I5) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. She presented the most recent changes in the Commission as a whole and in particular the new Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROWTH), replacing the former Directorates-General for Enterprise and Industry and for Internal Market. The related webpages on EUROPA would be renewed accordingly 205, as well as for the ATEX sector Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/01 rev. 1 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 8 July 2014 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 8 July The draft minutes were approved. 3. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation

321 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 GERMANY (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the latest Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 23 rd ), held in Brussels on 16 February With a good participation of members, several subjects had been discussed, regarding in particular market surveillance activities and procedures, technical and legal issues, standardisation and others, in close relationship to the main items in the Agenda of the Working Group. The relevant working documents and reports on the meeting would be available, as usual, on the ATEX Administrative Co-operation group on CIRCABC Transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU The Chairperson recalled the ongoing transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU 208, to be applicable from 20 April 2016, and asked for any information available on the transposition processes in Member States, as well as about questions, problems etc. The Commission would organise a specific "ATEX transition workshop", similar to those carried out for other NLF-aligned directives (Low Voltage, Electromagnetic Compatibility, Lifts ) in principle on 30 th September 2015, the day before the next meeting of the ATEX Working Group on 1 st October. This would be the opportunity to discuss open questions and to agree on a "FAQ - Questions/Answers" guidance document to be shared by the Commission to all the sectorial interested parties, focused on questions related to the Directive, as well as at horizontal level, from the old regime to the new one. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) gave a visual presentation on the development of the new ATEX Guidelines for Directive 2014/34/EU, carried out by the specific editorial group ("NAGEG") integrated by the Commission and representatives of Member States, standardisers, notified bodies and industry. A meeting took place on 18 November 2014 in Brussels to organise the work, on the basis of a first draft with the new structure: the text of the Directive (recitals, articles, annexes) with specific comments for each section or subsection. As a result, a second draft of the new ATEX Guidelines was produced in February 2015, by integrating into the new structure the main contents of the current ATEX Guidelines, duly assembled with the contributions of all the members of the editorial group, with some adjustments and improvements. The work would continue to complete and improve each section, also with new contents where necessary, references to the new "Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules" 209, inclusion of other guidance documents such as the "Consideration Papers" etc. A quasi-definitive document of the new ATEX Guidelines should be ready by mid-september 2015, to be submitted for open discussion and further improvement at the ATEX Workshop. After that, on the basis of the latest inputs by all the members, the final version of the new ATEX Guidelines should be approved and issued at the first Working Group meeting in Spring 2016, in due time for the date of applicability of the new Directive, 20 th April GERMANY observed that in the draft new Guidelines, comments to the recitals should not be really necessary, as they would be basically the same as for the articles; this should prevent any possible misunderstanding about the value of the legal text. In any case it would be necessary to ensure coordination and coherence with the contents of the "Blue Guide"

322 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) thanked GERMANY for the remarks, to be taken into due consideration. After the draft new Guidelines, he introduced a presentation on "New European Legislation on ATEX: transition from Directive 94/9/EC to Directive 2014/34/EU", as a proposal for a guidance document shared with the members of the ATEX Working Group by on 21 November It included information on the current ATEX Directive 94/9/EC and the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, with the main changes; the transitional period, with the main tasks for Member States, notifying authorities, notified bodies, standardisation and industry; transitional provisions for declarations of conformity, certificates and other documents; etc. Some of the issues presented should be further clarified in view of the September workshop; a revised and improved version of the document would be uploaded on CIRCABC and later on also on the EUROPA website. FRANCE, the NETHERLANDS, DENMARK and IRELAND appreciated the presentation and the workshop, and asked for more clarification on the main changes and in particular regarding validity of certificates, with cross-referencing and coordination also with the other aligned directives. The Chairperson confirmed that all these elements would be considered in preparing clear, coherent and comprehensive guidance documents for ATEX as well as for the other aligned directives, making them available on the EUROPA website as soon as possible. Concerning the specific question of re-notification of notified bodies in NANDO, she underlined that for the Member States notifying authorities it would not be necessary to wait until the full transposition of the directive to their national law: notification under the new ATEX Directive would be possible just transposing the articles on "notification of conformity assessment bodies" (Arts. 17 to 33), as earlier as possible, in order to complete the list in NANDO in due time. IRELAND asked for more information on the organisation of the workshop and the condition of participation for Member States representatives. POLAND also welcomed the workshop and proposed to carry out similar initiatives not only in Brussels but also in different Member States, if possible with the support of the Commission. SWEDEN inquired on the possibility to have some video links to the workshop, to make possible the widest participation also for interested parties outside Brussels. The Chairperson said that in principle the workshop on transition would be open to everybody, but with the limitation of space in the Commission' premises and with the particular reimbursement regime for Member States' representatives also taking advantage from the usual condition for participation to the ATEX Working Group meeting, the day after the workshop. On the other hand, the feasibility of options to enlarge participation would be checked with the relevant Commission services. 5. Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that no new version of the ATEX Borderline list had been submitted, making reference to the previous one still under discussion at the previous WG meeting (Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/03). GERMANY said that a revised version could be provided after the ATEX AdCo meeting, to be discussed and confirmed at the next ATEX WG meeting. 322

323 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 Action I DE to provide a revised version of the Borderline list, after the latest ATEX AdCo meeting, to be discussed and confirmed at the next ATEX WG meeting. Motor protection for Category 3 motors Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/04 GERMANY introduced the paper with a consensual proposal to answer the questions raised by DENMARK, as discussed at the latest ATEX AdCo meetings. The problem was not completely solved yet, making reference to different duty types; it should be further discussed at the Working Group. The NETHERLANDS expressed doubts whether the proposal gave the right solution by the point of view of the structure of the machine and the applicable standards. Would the definition of overload conditions be a decision of manufacturers? POLAND thought that overload could not be considered as "normal" operation of the motor. The manufacturer of the machine should carry out the appropriate assessment, based on nominal data. DENMARK explained that the basic question raised in page 1 received just one open answer, about which duty type was considered. To clarify it, a specific sentence was added in page 2 requiring the manufacturer to indicate the duty type on the nameplate of the motor, according to the standard IEC/EN series 210. In this sense, the answer provided could be considered complete, but, if necessary, further technical explanations could be included. The Chairperson invited the members to carry out bilateral discussions to clarify the interpretation given to the question. The point would be kept on the Agenda for the next ATEX WG meeting, to be sure that a satisfactory agreement can be reached. Action II ALL (in particular DA, DE, NL and PL) to bilaterally discuss the latest version of the paper to fully clarify its contents, to reach a final agreement at the next ATEX WG meeting. Telecommunications equipment under ATEX: Wi-Fi access point Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/05 rev. 1 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) presented the revised paper on telecommunication equipment under the ATEX Directive and wi-fi access points, in view of possible inclusion into the Borderline list. It included also an example of "wireless applications in hazardous areas" from a commercial catalogue, among others available on the Internet. The NETHERLANDS considered the document interesting, even if the inclusion into the Borderline list could lead to confusion, as such devices to be used in hazardous zone clearly must be ATEX-compliant. References to standards should be further checked. POLAND agreed on the need of specific consideration for standards, on a case-bycase basis. They would ask experts on practical aspects related to these devices and their possible sources of ignition: any input coming from them would be forwarded. The Chairperson asked the members for providing comments in written, for any useful improvement and clarification of the document. 210 EN parts 1-20 Rotating electrical machines 323

324 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 Action III ALL (in particular NL and PL) to provide contributions and expertise to improve and clarify the document, for the next ATEX WG meeting. Control systems and the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/11 The UNITED KINGDOM said that, after the last ATEX WG meeting, further discussions had been held with German colleagues and UK stakeholders, to better clarify the extent of questions 2. and 3. For the time being, no further development has been made in the paper. The Chairperson suggested keeping the paper until the next meeting, asking for more contributions to reach a final agreement on the answers to give to the proposed questions. Action IV ALL to provide comments on the UK paper to agree on the answers to the proposed questions at the next ATEX WG meeting. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) informed that the latest consolidated lists of references of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC had been published on the OJEU on 12 December 2014, as indicated on the EUROPA webpage 211. New publications in 2015 would depend also on an effective solution of the still pending problems with the activities of New Approach Consultants. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/05 CEN TC 305 presented the latest intermediate report (November 2014) of the Secretariat on the activities of CEN/TC 305 "Potentially explosive atmospheres - Explosion prevention and protection". After the basic references on the scope and organisation of the Technical Committee and its 6 working groups, the document updated the lists of plenary meetings from 1993 to 2014, the published European standards and CEN technical report, the program of work and the regular review of standards in Then, more information was provided on international activities and cooperation with ISO and IEC, including the lists of plenary meetings and projects under development. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/

325 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 CENELEC TC 31 presented a brief report (February 2015) from CLC TC, specifically informing on the latest news regarding three standards: EN , EN and EN Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/07 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) noted the absence of ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant, due to still pending problems with the activities of New Approach Consultants. In any case, he sent a written report covering the period August-December 2014 and providing information on assessment of standards and other standardisation activities. Harmonised standards under ATEX Directive 94/9/EC: proposal for A-B-C categorisation Doc. ATEX_WG/14/1/07 SWEDEN recalled the paper with the idea about a possible categorisation of ATEX harmonised standards, as presented at the previous WG meeting. No further comments had been provided. The Chairperson, taking into consideration the discussion already held, with the shared perception of no real usefulness of such classification, suggested to close the point for the time being. The NETHERLANDS agreed on closing the point, but they asked CEN and CENELEC whether it could be possible to add more information to precise the scope of standards, to improve conditions of their use. CEN answered that the CEN website provided more information on standards, through the specific sheets for technical bodies and projects. For each standard, the reference number, the title, the abstract/scope, the status, the legal and technical references, the publication and implementation dates etc. are indicated. Update on a proposal on International legal requirements for explosion protection submitted to UNECE GERMANY informed on the latest news concerning the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 215 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Within the IECEx system conferences, after Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) in February 2014 and The Hague (The Netherlands) in August 2014, the next ATEX and SIEEE-related event would take place in Gdańsk (Poland), on April About forthcoming initiatives, the concerned working parties would meet in November-December 2015, in particular to update the "Common Regulatory Framework for Equipment Used in Environments with an Explosive Atmosphere" (ex-cros). 212 EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures "d" (new 2014 version, not harmonised) 213 EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 7: Equipment protection by increased safety "e" 214 EN 50495:2010 Safety devices required for the safe functioning of equipment with respect to explosion risks

326 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the Standing Committee Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) reported no news on the issue. The NETHERLANDS observed that some Clarification Sheets published on the ATEX website 216 are really old, with references to old standards. They wonder it would not be necessary some "cleaning-up" exercise. ExNBG said that in general terms, a revision process is carried out every 5 years. They would check the situation of the oldest Clarification Sheets for any necessary action. Update on current issues ExNBG informed on the last meeting of the European ATEX Notified Body Group (ExNBG), on November 2014 in Brussels. He mentioned in particular the work under development with Clarification Sheets and other documents from the different working groups, also in view of the ongoing transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU. Notified bodies would expect more specific practical arrangements as well as the national transpositions and the re-notification process. Regular contacts and exchanges were held with the Commission services, the ATEX AdCo group, IECEx etc. The next meeting would take place on November 2015 in Brussels. DENMARK asked for more information on the re-appointment of notified bodies under the new Directive and about accreditation and the standards to be used, making reference to the most recent documents issued by the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) 217. This should ensure coherence with the applicable legal provisions and the new "Blue Guide": for that, the Commission should check the situation with EA. The Chairperson said that the question would concern in particular the document "EA-2/17: EA guidance on the horizontal requirements for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies for notification purposes" (published on 9 December 2014). The Commission would keep contact with the horizontal services in charge of accreditation and notification issues, for some clarification, to ensure coherence and to prevent any misunderstanding in interpretation: there should be no conflict between EA documents, legislation and the "Blue Guide", taking into due consideration the basic principle of the system, in particular the voluntary use of standards. 8. Interfaces ATEX product 94/9/EC and workplace Directives 1999/92/EC Fuel dispensers - Zoning for 1999/92/EC - Updates CECOD presented the updated versions of documents related to their work on interaction between the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC and complex 94/9/EC assemblies for fuelling stations, in particular the "suggestion guide" with

327 XXXII. 17 FEBRUARY 2015 examples. They were made public through the CECOD website 218, in the "approved documents" folder, open to discussion and contributions. 9. Any other business The Chairperson informed on some ongoing initiatives by the Commission: - Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC: the Commission is going to launch an evaluation study on the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC, as a first step of a revision process. The call for tenders for an external contractor would be published in the incoming months, to carry out the study during TTIP negotiations: current discussions concerned general/horizontal issues more than sectorial ones, such as standardisation, conformity assessment procedures, accreditation, etc., with relevant differences between the EU and USA systems. International standardisation could be a way forward for a possible convergence; in any case this should not endanger the European system. Updated information could be found on the specific EUROPA webpages Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting was planned to take place in Brussels on 1 st October 2015, the day after the ATEX transition workshop on 30 th September. Confirmation and formal invitations would be sent to all the members in due time

328 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems ATEX 94/9/EC and 2014/34/3U Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 1 October 2015 Subject: Working Group of the ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 2014/34/EU Committee Place: Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Chairperson: Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM GROW/C3) COMM Participants: Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Mr Michael DODDS, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (GROW/C3) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. She briefly recalled the organisation and tasks of the working parties in the ATEX sector: the ATEX Committee under the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, to discuss and vote on implementing acts related to safeguard clauses and challenges to notified bodies; and the ATEX Working Group, to continue working as usual concerning interpretation, implementation and practical guidance. The documents of the ATEX working parties are going to be publicly available, for the sake of transparency, and the European Parliament has the right of participation. She also made reference to the new name of the Unit dealing with the ATEX sector in the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (GROWTH), as "C3 - Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems". The related sectorial webpage on the Commission's website is operational Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 17 February 2015 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 17 February

329 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 The draft minutes were approved. 3. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation GERMANY (ATEX AdCo Chair) reported on the latest Administrative Co-operation group meeting (the 24 th ), held in Berlin on June 2015, as usual with good participation and support. Several horizontal questions related to the ATEX Working Group had been discussed. Concerning market surveillance, a draft horizontal guidance document is currently developed by a small group; when completed, it would be made available to all the interested parties. Cross-border cooperation issues had been discussed, making reference to concrete examples. Then, the ATEX AdCo group dealt with some technical issues, in particular on vacuum cleaners, gas detection apparatus, safety control devices, fork-lifts trucks, electrical trace heating systems, etc. Some of the outcome of such discussions had been forwarded to the ATEX Working Group to be discussed, in particular the proposals to revise the Consideration Papers on fork-lifts trucks and on electrical trace heating systems. Questions related to the transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EC had been also considered, in particular on documents and certificates and the related language requirements. Moreover, the group dealt with legal issues related to borderlines with other EU legislation (ATEX "workplace" Directive, Machinery Directive, Construction Regulation ) as well as on the improvement of the ATEX Borderline list. As usual, the relevant working documents and reports on the meeting would be available on the ATEX Administrative Co-operation group on CIRCABC Transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU The Chairperson provided an update on the ongoing activities related to the transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU 222, to be applicable from 20 April The "ATEX transition workshop" was held on 30 September and the results will be made available on the ATEX website shortly afterwards. She asked the representatives of Member States for the state of play on the transposition process. DENMARK informed that a public hearing would be finalised in October 2015, to complete the process by the end of the year. NETHERLANDS completed the final draft of the legal regulation, to be submitted to consultation. The result should be published at beginning of GERMANY was going to complete their national regulation, supported at federal level, by the end of November 2015; publication of the final text should take place in January IRELAND was preparing the relevant health and safety regulation, to be published on early FRANCE published their legal transposition act on 1 st July SWITZERLAND carried out consultation on the draft text, with positive feedback; to be completed by the end of LUXEMBOURG informed on their ongoing process, with a draft text submitted to comments, proposing some amendments etc. The final result should be published on early

330 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 UNITED KINGDOM carried out public consultation on the draft text, to be able to implement the final legal act in due time. FINLAND was preparing the new legal act, to be submitted to the Parliament at beginning of December CYPRUS said that the new draft regulation was under scrutiny by their legal experts, to be submitted to the Parliament. CZECH REPUBLIC was working in the final draft, to be published at beginning New ATEX Guidelines (draft 4 - September 2015) Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/03 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) introduced the latest draft of the new ATEX Guidelines for Directive 2014/34/EU, developed by the specific editorial group. He underlined in particular the new structure of the document, in which almost all the contents of the current ATEX Guidelines had been integrated and reorganised, as well as the "Consideration Papers" in separate sections, and more new sections related to the text of the new Directive coming from the alignment to the New Legislative Framework. This would be the opportunity also to improve some elements in wording and clarification, to make the ATEX Guidelines an even better and more useful document for all the interested parties. This draft is submitted to all the members of the ATEX Working Group to collect their comments, suggestions and proposals, in order to able to continue the work in view to have a final draft for approval at the next meeting in February 2016, in due time to make available the new ATEX Guidelines for date of applicability of the new Directive on 20 April NETHERLANDS recognised the good work done and asked for the management of such a long document in the internet, dealing with each article of the Directive and the different areas of implementation. In particular, it could be useful to clarify some aspects on the interfaces with the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC, as in Annex II and/or in a specific section of the Guidelines. DENMARK raised a question on the language of instructions, considering useful to specify a list of language regimes in the EU. GERMANY also welcomed the work done. Concerning the comments for recitals, they considered them not really useful, as the main contents should be found for the articles: recitals are just an introductory background, just making reference to the main text of the Directive. Then, some contents copied-pasted from the current ATEX Guidelines should be further improved, also in terminology, taking into consideration the latest concepts from the New Legislative Framework, for example on placing on the market, economic operators, etc. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) confirmed that the new ATEX Guidelines would be a living document to be made available on the ATEX website in pdf format, with internal and external hyperlinks, and open to continuous improvement and integration when necessary. A specific section on the interfaces between the ATEX "product" and "workplace" Directive would be indeed very useful for these Guidelines. Also, considerations on the EU official languages to comply with the requirements on instructions will be introduced in a similar way as in the Guide to application to the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC. The question on recitals will be further discussed and, indeed, a close look to terminology is necessary, to make the new ATEX Guidelines fully updated in line with the New Legislative Framework and the contents of the new "Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules 223 "

331 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 He thanked all those present for their comments, to be taken into due consideration, and asked for more contributions, in written form, by mid-january 2016 at the latest, to prepare the final version of the document for the next ATEX WG meeting in February Action I ALL to provide comments and contributions on the draft as presented, by mid- January 2016 at the latest. COMM and the editorial group (NAGEG) to continue developing the draft of the new ATEX Guidelines, taking into consideration the comments and contributions from the ATEX WG members, in view to submit to their approval the final version at the next meeting in February Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/04 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) introduced the paper, with the latest proposals to improve the ATEX borderline list, in particular from the latest meeting of the ATEX AdCo Group. GERMANY presented the changes proposed by the ATEX AdCo Group, concerning in particular new points on "Extension cord with plug" and "Cable reel" and modifications in "Power transmission belt or belt drives or belt in belt drives", "Defibrillator", etc. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) asked for comments to proceed point by point, to discuss and approve, or not, the changes proposed. Extension cord with plug The addition of this point was approved by general consensus. Cable reel GERMANY explained the convenience to distinguish this kind of products by including a specific point in the list. NETHERLANDS considered that they were also mechanical reels, not only electrical. In a similar way as for earthing clamps, a more specific definition of cable reel, and a picture, would be necessary. FRANCE agreed with NETHERLANDS. They did not consider this product in the scope of the Directive. It would be necessary to better specify the point, in particular about the consideration of electrical or non-electrical. DENMARK clarified that the point made reference to electrical cable reels, to be better described. The cable was not only a mechanical part, then the reel would be related to a socket permanently fixed. The point on "Cable reel" in this sense needs to be a little bit more precise. GERMANY agreed on adding a picture and asked for written comments to reach a clear definition. The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant suggested making reference to the definition of "Cable reel" in the IEC vocabulary (ref ) 224. He also thought on electrical equipment with permanent cables. CENELEC TC 31 made reference to standards covering plugs and sockets, but not cables; no technical bodies were working with cables at the moment. When part of a

332 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 standard can be converted into a product standard, at this stage it would be very difficult. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) noted the agreement on the need of further analysis and contributions on this point. Defibrillator The exclusion of this point was approved by general consensus. Power transmission belt or belt drives or belt in belt drives FRANCE pointed out the proposed change from "Yes" to "No" on the consideration of this product in the scope of Directive 94/9/EC and asked for the reasoning, in particular by the point of view of manufacturers and the impact on classification. GERMANY explained that manufacturers were making different uses of these belts as explosion protected, to prevent risks in different applications. But the point should need further clarification on the background of the classification, also including a breakdown of the product in its individual parts. CENELEC TC 31 compared this product with components, with no own source of ignition, certified as components but contributing to safety. Also belts would contribute to safety, even if it would not be clear whether it is an essential function. GERMANY agreed on think about the possibility to consider it a similar way as a component. More discussions are needed on this. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) summarised the point confirming that the conclusive results would be duly integrated into a new version of the Borderline list, for the new ATEX Guidelines; when the points still under discussion will be further analysed and commented for the next ATEX WG meeting in February Action II COMM to update the list as agreed, adding the point on "Extension cord with plug", to be integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines. DE and ALL, to further analyse and comment on the points on "Cable reel" and "Power transmission belt or belt drives or belt in belt drives". Motor protection for Category 3 motors Doc. ATEX_WG/15/1/04 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recalled the question discussed in the previous meeting, on a question raised by DENMARK and the latest version of the paper including the proposals put forward by GERMANY. He asked for information on the result of bilateral discussions after the last meeting. POLAND reported on discussion concerning the concept of "normal use" for this kind of equipment, as defined by manufacturers. They concluded that for category 3 motors in normal use, no safety device should be used. Electrical motors should be used alone, a person should be responsible for disconnection and other operation, according to the parameters set up by the manufacturers. DENMARK clarified that the document should not be considered as a request to use a specific type of equipment, but just an answer to a question raised by a Danish committee. With the changes introduced in the last meeting, they consider that the document is now satisfactory. GERMANY confirmed the clarification introduced with the considerations on standards at the end of the paper, inviting to adopt it in its final configuration. NETHERLANDS also agreed on adopting the paper, being much clearer now concerning the question on "normal" operation, also with the remarks on standards. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the document, with no further remarks apart of those from POLAND. The paper, as approved in this last version 332

333 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 from DENMARK and GERMANY, will be integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines, to be presented at the next ATEX WG meeting. Action III COMM to integrate the paper, as approved in its last version DK-DE, into the new ATEX Guidelines. Telecommunications equipment under ATEX: Wi-Fi access point Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/05 rev. 2 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) presented the latest revised paper on telecommunication equipment under the ATEX Directive and wi-fi access points. FRANCE agreed with the contents of the revised paper, but asked for keeping some examples as in the first version. ORGALIME agreed on the paper and on adding some example. When integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines, it should not be placed in the "Borderline list", as it could lead to confusion. Also, a chapter on the relationship with the new Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU could be useful. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the document. It will be integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines, not in the "Borderline list". Action IV COMM to integrate the paper, as approved in the revised version, into the new ATEX Guidelines (not to be mentioned in the "Borderline list"). Control systems and the ATEX Directive Doc. ATEX_WG/14/2/11 UNITED KINGDOM reported on comments received from GERMANY. They proposed to revise the paper in line with such comments. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) agreed on a revision version to be integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines. Action V UK to update the paper according to the comments received by DE, to integrate its main contents into the new ATEX Guidelines. Proposal for revision of the Consideration Paper on Fork-lift-trucks Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/05 GERMANY presented a paper proposing a revision of the Consideration Paper on Fork-lift-trucks 225, in particular on the right conformity assessment procedure for trucks with additional electrical ignition source. The revised version would be more precise to describe the possible situations, after discussions held in the AdCo Group. NETHERLANDS had no specific remarks on the proposed changes, but just wondering whether they would be appropriate for the new Directive and the standards under revision. GERMANY answered that revision of standard was taken into consideration, to prevent any conflict when applying the relevant conformity assessment procedures

334 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 UNITED KINGDOM said that they need to further analyse the paper, to send written comments later on. The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant said that revised standards on industrial trucks were not published yet, to ensure the application of the Machinery Directive also with the new ATEX Directive, according to their scopes. The Chairperson asked the members to provide written comments on the German proposal to modify the Consideration Paper, to reach an agreement at the next meeting in view of integrating it into the new ATEX Guidelines. Action VI ALL to provide comments on the DE proposal to modify the Consideration Paper, in view of its integration into the new ATEX Guidelines. Proposal for revision of the Consideration paper on Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/06 GERMANY presented a paper proposing a revision of the Consideration Paper on Electrical trace heating systems 226, as the result of recent discussions to improve and clarify it, also concerning the terminology used and the references to the Directive. DENMARK pointed out some problems on types "A" and "B" in the diagram with respect to CE marking when putting products on the market. NETHERLANDS agreed with DENMARK and added that also the points on instructions for use and qualifications of personnel should be clarified. In particular, notified bodies should not be responsible to assess such elements. GERMANY recalled discussions already held to reword the paper, in particular those aspects related not only to Directive 94/9/EC on products but also to assemblies and installations for end-users. The document could be further improved, taking into consideration the complexity of the involved questions. The main terms under discussion should be related to certification as components and CE marking. The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant mentioned new standards on instructions for safe use, to properly operate trace heating systems 227. It could be useful to involve also Notified Bodies on the question. The Chairperson asked the members to provide written comments on the German proposal to modify the Consideration Paper, to reach an agreement at the next meeting in view of integrating it into the new ATEX Guidelines. Action VII ALL to provide comments on the DE proposal to modify the Consideration Paper, in view of its integration into the new ATEX Guidelines. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards IEC/IEEE :2015 Explosive atmospheres - Part 30-1: Electrical resistance trace heating - General and testing requirements; Part 30-2: Electrical resistance trace heating - Application guide for design, installation and maintenance 334

335 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) said that the new consolidated lists of references of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC were going to be published on the OJEU in October 2015, as on the sectorial webpage 228. The activities of the New Approach Consultants had been resumed since September, after the new agreement between the Commission and the European Standardisation Organisations. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/07 CEN TC 305 presented the latest intermediate report (September 2015) of the Secretariat on the activities carried out in the last period. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/08 CENELEC TC 31 presented a brief report, pointed out in particular the situation of EN going to be harmonised. Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/09 The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant presented a report referred to September 2015 only, since he resumed his activities. Update on a proposal on "International legal requirements for explosion protection" submitted to UNECE GERMANY reported on the latest activities related to the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 230 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Within the 2015 IECEx International Conference, a UNECE/SIEEE event took place in Gdańsk (Poland), on April 2015, with representatives from 25 countries attending, as well as from the Commission. Different proposals to regulate possible implementation in the area had been put forward, concerning in particular test houses to deal with technical issues on safety appliances to be part of the network in Europe; common procedures for notification and accreditation of conformity assessment bodies; and market surveillance. In particular, it would be useful to know the opinion of the Commission with regard to "European test houses" whether they could be feasible in the future, taking into consideration the wide interest in such a possibility. Specific information on these last developments, in particular about the "Common Regulatory Framework for Equipment Used in Environments with an Explosive Atmosphere" (CROs), will be published on the SIEE website in December The Chairperson commented on the report and the proposals on test houses, common regulatory objectives, etc. This should be treated at a quite horizontal level EN :2014 Explosive atmospheres - Part 1: Equipment protection by flameproof enclosures "d"

336 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER 2015 in the EU internal market. In principle it would be possible to imagine something complementary to the current regime for Notified Bodies under the New Approach / New Legislative Framework legislation, about notification procedures, accreditation etc.: in any case it would be necessary not to "overload" the current system: the situation should be carefully monitored. Discussions are ongoing about sectors to be considered as a common benchmarking for the performances of Notified Bodies, even though concrete results are not going to be expected in the near future. About test houses and market surveillance, this is also a quite horizontal issue under discussion, being necessary to explore the situation and to distinguish specific cases. The Commission is following a very cautious approach on these issues, but not a totally negative one, in view of possible improvement of the EU system. 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) mentioned that the list of ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee (status on January 2012) is now available on the renewed ATEX website 231. Oral procedure for noting: ExNB/15/459/CS Notification scheme and comments received Docs. ATEX_WG/15/2/10, ATEX_WG/15/2/10-1 ExNBG presented a Clarification Sheet on "Common scheme for NANDO notification", proposing a template/checklist to introduce information on notified bodies in the NANDO database, to improve the current situation with some differences in format and contents. The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant sent a written comment on two points related to categorisation and conformity assessment. POLAND presented an alternative template, to better specify the ATEX modules applied. Mr GABRIELLI COSSELLU (COMM) recognised the interest of the proposals, to be taken into consideration, but explained that the issue of notification format and contents in NANDO is quite horizontal, not only for ATEX but also for the other sectorial legislation under the New Approach and the New Legislative Framework. The Chairperson confirmed that the Clarification Sheet will be taken into consideration for horizontal discussions in the Commission services in order to improve the NANDO database and to "harmonise" its notification system. Action VIII COMM to take into consideration the Clarification Sheet for horizontal discussions in the Commission services in order to improve the NANDO database and to "harmonise" its notification system. Update on current issues ExNBG confirmed that the next meeting of the Group will take place on November 2015, in Brussels

337 XXXIII. 1 OCTOBER Interfaces ATEX "product" 94/9/EC and "workplace" Directives 1999/92/EC No information on this point. 9. Any other business No other business. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting would take place in February The date should be fixed as soon as possible and formal invitations would be sent to all the members in due time. 337

338 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems ATEX 94/9/EC and 2014/34/EU Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 18 February 2016 Subject: Place: Chairperson: COMM Participants: Working Group of the ATEX Directives 94/9/EC and 2014/34/EU Committee Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM GROW/C3) Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Elżbieta PAPRZYCKA, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (GROW/C3) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the Commission participants. She opened the meeting mentioning that it was the first one of the Working Group of the Committee under the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, according to the Rules of Procedure approved in December 2015 and entered into force on 1 st January Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/01 rev. 2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 1 October 2015 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 1 st October The draft minutes were approved. 3. ATEX AdCo - Administrative Co-operation GERMANY, as the former Chair of the ATEX Administrative Co-operation (AdCo) Group, informed that the latest meeting (the 25 th ) was held in Brussels on 17 February 2016, with the transmission of the Chair to the UNITED KINGDOM. 338

339 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 UNITED KINGDOM reported on the main issued discussed at the meeting. Among them, there was the ongoing work to draft guidelines for market surveillance activities, from the meetings of the sectorial AdCo Chairs. Other horizontal issues concerned the new safeguard procedure under the Directives aligned to the New Legislative Framework, including the new ICSMS system, to become operational in April 2016; the cross-border co-operation between authorities; the informal communication before taking actions, avoiding "surprises", etc. Then, some specific technical issues had been addressed, about fuel dispensers, fork-lifts trucks, protective systems, electrical trace heating systems, the interface between the ATEX and the Machinery Directives, and others, in relation also to the items under discussion in the ATEX WG and for the new ATEX Guidelines, as for the "Borderline list". As usual, the relevant working documents and reports on the meeting would be available on the ATEX Administrative Co-operation group on CIRCABC Transition to the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU The Chairperson recalled the last steps in view of the date of application of the new ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU 233 on 20 April She asked for updated information on the transposition process in the Member States. NETHERLANDS informed that the national legal act would be published in February 2016, also for the notification of notified bodies under the new Directive. In this sense, they asked for clarification on the procedure to be followed, also in the other sectorial legislation: Notified Bodies need to be firstly appointed by the competent national authority, and then notified to COMM and the other Member States. For that, it would be necessary to have a legal basis for the notification procedure. The Chairperson explained that COMM encouraged to carry out the transposition and the notification processes as soon as possible, to ensure to make it as smoother as possible and to avoid last-minute problems. On such basis, the national notification procedures and the newly Notified Bodies would be published on the NANDO database 234. Concerning the legal basis to notify, it would be indeed required, even if not necessarily completely transposing the new Directive, but at least the parts dealing with notification of Notified Bodies, in particular defining the procedure adopted in the Member State. New ATEX Guidelines (Final Draft - February 2016) Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/03 COMM introduced the final draft, completed and circulated at the end of February 2016, of the new ATEX Guidelines for Directive 2014/34/EU, developed by COMM with the support of the specific editorial group (NAGEG). With respect to the previous draft presented in September 2015, comments and contributions on the draft had been received and taken into due account, to submit the resulting document for the final approval and the publication on the sectorial webpage on ATEX. NETHERLANDS underlined the need to have a good document already to be endorsed, also for further development in the future, when necessary

340 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 COMM explained that the new ATEX Guidelines, as the others, would continue to be a "living document" but at the same time it should keep some stability, to be a solid reference for all the interested parties. This would also allow developing other language versions, from the basic one in English. GERMANY expressed their interest in drafting a translation in German, to make it available on the website too. It would be based on the previous Guidelines, by introducing the changes of the new Guidelines. AUSTRIA considered the resulting Guidelines very valid, consolidating all the information in a single document. They noted that there are some references to the "Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules 235 ", but not systematically: this should be checked. COMM confirmed that all the internal and external references in the Guidelines would be carefully checked, to ensure the full coherence and usefulness of the document; this would be done also in parallel with the ongoing revision of the Blue Guide itself. For the possible translations, COMM would provide the relevant files. POLAND announced that they would send some written comments on the Guidelines, for example about terminology used in the diagram of conformity assessment procedures (page 93). NETHERLANDS also considered that the diagram should be revised. They also underlined the need to have harmonised guidelines for the whole set of EU Directives aligned to the New Legislative Framework, as for example for the safeguard procedure, etc. COMM confirmed that the terminology in the Guidelines needed to be fully aligned to the new Directive from the New Legislative Framework. FRANCE remarked, in section 148 "Marking of small products", that the expression "εx marking (epsilon-x, within the hexagon) (not for components)" should be corrected by removing "(not for components)". COMM explained that this was related to the fact the components must not be CEmarked, and the εx marking should be used alongside the CE marking. But this would be checked. NETHERLANDS proposed to shorten the "Borderline list", in particular for electrical components, to be less comprehensive and to focus on really unclear points. The Chairperson proposed a deadline for the last written comments and contributions on the final version of the Guidelines, 4 weeks from the date of the meeting until 21 March COMM would collect them, checking whether they can be directly integrated into the Guidelines or they should be further checked with the members by written procedure. On this basis, the final text of the first edition of the new ATEX Guidelines 2014/34/EU will be circulated in CIRCABC in word format (also in track changes with respect to the text of the old ATEX Guidelines 94/9/EC) and will be published on the COMM sectorial website in pdf format by mid-april Action I ALL to provide written comments and contributions on the final draft, by 21 March 2016 at the latest. COMM to collect the latest comments and contributions as expressed in the meeting and sent in written form, checking whether they can be directly integrated into the Guidelines or they should be further checked with the members by written procedure. On this basis, the final text of the first edition of the new ATEX Guidelines 2014/34/EU will be circulated in CIRCABC in word format (also in

341 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 track changes with respect to the text of the old ATEX Guidelines 94/9/EC) and will be published on the Commission website in pdf format by mid-april Directive 94/9/EC: interpretation and application questions Borderline list - ATEX products: updates Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/04 The UNITED KINGDOM introduced the draft version of the ATEX Borderline list with the latest proposals for improvements, in particular removing the point on defibrillators and the items on cable reel and power transmission belts. GERMANY said that they proposed the changes on transmission belts, as they could be spare parts but no autonomous function. CENELEC TC 31 remarked the possible problems on considering transmission belts as equipment out of the scope, but not as components with no autonomous function. Making distinction for belts could be dangerous for other possible cases. GERMANY clarified that transmission belts would not be components at all, according to the ATEX Directive. It would be necessary to check the situation for other similar devices. FRANCE thought that power transmission belts could be considered as components, needing a written attestation of conformity as such. It would be necessary to clarify whether they should be taken within the scope of the Directive or not. DENMARK proposed to provide a picture for such products, to help to clarify the situation. COMM considered necessary to report this point to the next meeting, asking for more specific comments and contributions to improve the list, in particular for the still controversial points as for power transmission belts, to be able to reach a final agreement. FRANCE made reference to the definition of component, as part of equipment in the scope of the Directive, when manufacturers place them on the market, certified according to their intended use. The Chairperson underlined that such clarification should be made not only for a specific product but on a more general basis, according to the scope and definitions as in the Directive (Articles 1 and 2 of 2014/34/EU). The important issue would be not the "intention" of the manufacturer, but the function and the related safety aspects. This could be also reflected in the ATEX Guidelines. CENELEC TC 31 recalled the reasons for considering these products out of the scope, as components with no autonomous function; but not the equipment as such. GERMANY believed that this would not just a matter of "yes" or "not" in the scope, but a deep discussion should be carried out among market surveillance authorities. The Chairperson concluded reporting the question to the next meeting of the ATEX WG, as for the rest of the Borderline list, asking the members to provide written comments and proposals, to be collected and organised by the UK as the Chair of the ATEX AdCo Group, to draft a new improved version of the list, to be integrated into the new ATEX Guidelines. Action II ALL, to provide written comments on the latest proposals for the list, in particular on "Power transmission belt or belt drives or belt in belt drives". UK, to collect and organise proposals to draft a new improved version of the list, in view of its integration into the new ATEX Guidelines. 341

342 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 Control systems and the ATEX Directive Docs. ATEX_WG/14/2/11, ATEX_WG/16/1/08 UNITED KINGDOM introduced the revised paper on guidance on control systems, according to the latest comments provided, for the section of the ATEX Guidelines concerning "Requirements in respect of safety-related devices". The NETHERLANDS thought that control devices and safety devices should be considered separately, as they should take separate independent decisions, even if integrated together, on the basis of the standards already mentioned there. They proposed to modify the last sentence of the UK proposal. The UNITED KINGDOM would check the Dutch comment, for those devices to fulfil both functions, as separate and independent. COMM said that the revised paper would be considered at the next ATEX WG meeting to be integrated into section 168 of the new ATEX Guidelines. Action III UK to revise the paper according to the NL comments on separation of safety devices and control devices. COMM, to integrate the proposed text into section 168 of the ATEX Guidelines. Proposal for revision of the Consideration Paper on Fork-lift-trucks Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/05 rev. 2 GERMANY said that the question was still under discussion and revision, needing further analysis. They proposed to put apart this point, when a new version of the paper would be resubmitted to the ATEX WG at a later stage. For the time being, a note could be added to section 250 of the new ATEX Guidelines, reproducing the old Consideration Paper on Fork-lift-trucks 236, stating that it is still under revision. COMM noted the agreement on this and reported the point to the next ATEX WG meeting. Action IV UK and ALL, to retake the paper for further analysis and revision, to resubmit it to the Working Group at a later stage. COMM, to keep the text of the Consideration Paper as on the Commission website for the new ATEX Guidelines, adding a specific note on the ongoing revision process. Proposal for revision of the Consideration paper on Electrical trace heating systems Doc. ATEX_WG/15/2/06 rev. 3 GERMANY recalled the question under discussion on the old Consideration Paper on Electrical trace heating systems 237, in view of the integration into the new ATEX Guidelines. The evidenced proposed changes aimed to improve the paper to make it clearer for this kind of devices (no longer available as from 20 April 2016) (no longer available as from 20 April 2016) 342

343 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 The NETHERLANDS proposed, in point (4)(b) "Controlled designed", to replace "defective sensor" with "defective limiter system". GERMANY agreed, as the term "sensor" would not be sufficiently clear, being better to use "temperature limiter sensor" which can fail. The Chairperson noted the general agreement on the paper, with the updates to be introduced by GERMANY according to the Dutch comments. The revised paper would introduced into the new ATEX Guidelines, section 253. Action V DE, to update the paper according to the NL comments on temperature limiter sensors. COMM, to introduce the revised paper into the new ATEX Guidelines. 6. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards COMM said that the new consolidated lists of references of harmonised standards under the ATEX Directive 94/9/EC were published on the OJEU on 9 October 2015, as on the sectorial webpage 238. As already announced, the next publication should take place in March-April 2016, well before the date of applicability of the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, presenting on the same issue of the OJEU the last list under the "old" Directive and the first list under the "new" Directive, with the same contents, for the sake of clarity, transparency and continuity. Standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/05 CEN TC 305 presented the latest intermediate report (February 2016) of the Secretariat on the activities carried out in the last period, focusing in particular on the list of ongoing projects, also at international level under the Vienna agreement. Standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/06 CENELEC TC 31 presented a brief report on the activities carried out in the last period, with the new standards published in 2015 and the special situation for standards such as the new version of EN , under preparation from the IEC version issued in Report of the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/ pren Explosive Atmospheres - Part 30-1: Electrical resistance trace heating - General and testing requirements for industrial applications (previous version harmonised under the ATEX Directive: EN :2007 Explosive atmospheres - Part 30-1: Electrical resistance trace heating - General and testing requirements) 343

344 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 The ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant presented his written report covering the period from 1 September 2015 to 1 February Among the main contents, he mentioned the question on "potential trouble with marking" for specific type of equipment. DENMARK raised a question related to the standard on electrical installations mentioned in the report, about a "safety notice" published in the website of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of the UNITED KINGDOM: "Use of barrier glands in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres to meet IEC : " 241 (the European version was not harmonised under the ATEX Directive). Apparently, the latest changes were not justified on safety matters, and this would lead to problems also in the national versions as indicated in the note. They wonder whether a common approach could be taken in the issue. CENELEC TC 31 said that this was a difficult situation, with large discussions on the requirements of the standard and challenging the methodology used. The current 2014 version of the standard showed some critical points, and for that such warning was issued; for the time being the situation was not satisfactory. The NETHERLANDS proposed to provide some help to clarify the question, in any case considering that the standard was not harmonised. DENMARK said that, even it would not be an issue directly related to the ATEX Directive, it would concern installations in potentially explosive areas, being necessary to have a common understanding and the same rules for specialists. COMM invited the members to address their comments on the issue directly to DENMARK and the UNITED KINGDOM, as a contribution to improve the related technical information. UNECE and IECEx activities on international legal requirements for explosion protection - Updates GERMANY reported on the latest activities related to the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 242 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The last meeting of WP.6 took place in Geneva (Switzerland) in December 2015, where the Common Regulatory Objectives (CROs) were taken at hold. A new meeting was planned in May 2016, in Delhi (India), within the IECEx 2016 Conference. 7. Co-operation between Notified Bodies ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee COMM confirmed that the list of ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee (status on January 2012) is available on the ATEX website 243 ; no new sheets were available. 240 IEC :2003 Explosive atmospheres - Part 14: Electrical installations design, selection and erection

345 XXXIV. 18 FEBRUARY 2016 Update on current issues ExNBG briefly reported on the main issues discussed at the last meeting of the Group held on November 2015, in Brussels, in particular about the relationship with the IECEx scheme; the proposals to improve the NANDO system for notification; the participation of the ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant to the meetings of the ExNBG Group; etc. The next meeting was planned to take place on November 2016, again in Brussels. CEN-CENELEC, concerning the question on the Consultant, explained that the reduction of the available budget for standardisation activities under the new financial agreement signed with COMM would not allow such participation, as they consider that these activities were not directly linked to the development of harmonised standards. In this sense, they would need to adjust the available resources to "essential" activities. ITALY said that the publication of double lists of Notified Bodies on NANDO, under Directive 94/9/EC until 20 April 2016, and under Directive 2014/34/EU, could cause some misunderstandings and distortions for the users, in particular for those bodies already notified under the new Directive. COMM explained the rationale of such "double publication" during the last months before the date of applicability of the new ATEX Directive, for the sake of transparency and to provide public information on the body already notified, according to the procedures adopted in the Member States. The ExNBG should invite its members to inform about the situation and to prevent unfair practices which would cause distortions on the market. 8. Interfaces ATEX "product" 94/9/EC and "workplace" 1999/92/EC Directives Information on review of Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) Directives COMM informed that the relevant services of the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL) of COMM had begun a full review of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Directives, including the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC. A Staff Working Document (SWD) was produced, containing the evaluation reports of the concerned legislation; for the time being, there were no problematic issues with respect to the relationship with the ATEX "product" legislation 94/9/EC and 2014/34/EU. COMM would continue to follow up this exercise and to inform the Working Group accordingly, also with the close co-operation with the colleagues from DG EMPL. 9. Any other business No other business. 10. Next meeting date The Chairperson said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting would take place in July The date should be fixed as soon as possible (usually two months in advance) and formal invitations would be sent to all the members in due time. 345

346 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems ATEX 2014/34/3U Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 5 July 2016 Subject: Place: Chairperson: COM Participants: Working Group of the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU Committee Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COM GROW/C3) Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Elżbieta PAPRZYCKA, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER, Ms Nathalie BOUTTEFEUX (GROW/C3), Ms Victoria PETROVA (GROW/C) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COM participants. 1. Approval of the draft agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/01 rev.2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. GERMANY proposed to raise an issue on declaration of conformity under item 10 "Any other business", also related to item 5 "Proposals for revision/improvement of the ATEX 2014/34/EU Guidelines". The Chairperson noted the agreement on the proposal. With the addition proposed by GERMANY, the draft Agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 18 February 2016 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 18 February The draft Minutes were approved as tabled. 3. Information on current issues State of play on the implementation of Directive 2014/34/EU 346

347 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 The Chairperson mentioned that not all the Member States had fully transposed the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, applicable since 20 April 2016, with the related direct legal effects for the economic operators and all the citizens, who can already use the EU legislation even not transposed yet at national level beyond the deadline. She asked for information on the current situation, also with respect to notification of conformity assessment bodies. DENMARK inquired on the obligations of the European Economic Area (EEA) Countries with respect to the transposition and implementation of the Directive, whether they should respect the same deadline as for the EU Member States. The Chairperson answered that for the EEA Countries there was no special legal regime: they had to follow the same requirements, as indicated in the title of the Directive itself "Text with EEA relevance", according to the EEA Agreement 244. In any case, COM would check with the relevant legal experts the related time requirements, to provide a clear and complete answer to the question. FINLAND informed that they had still some delay in the national transposition process. The Directive had been partially implemented, being necessary to reform the horizontal law on safety of products, but the provisions for notified bodies were already in force. The process in the Parliament should be completed probably in September CECOD raised a question on the EC/EU declaration of conformity, to make directly reference to the regime under the New Legislative Framework, even where the Directive was not transposed yet. The Chairperson confirmed that, after the deadline for transposition (19 April 2016) the new regime would be applicable, and the new EU declarations of conformity issued after that date had to refer only to Directive 2014/34/EU. If not transposed yet, the Directive would have the direct effect as mentioned before. CYPRUS informed that the draft proposal for their national transposition had been already prepared, but it did not proceed in the Parliament for its dissolution for elections. It should be retaken at the shortest delay to be inserted into Cyprus law. COM, at request of DENMARK, said that the list of national implementing measures communicated by Member States concerning Directive 2014/34/EU was available on the EUR-Lex service 245. The link would be added on the Commission's sectorial webpage on ATEX. Action I COM, to check the time requirements for the transposition of the Directive for the EEA Countries with respect to the EU Member States. Action II COM, to add a link to the EUR-Lex page on "National implementing measures" on the sectorial webpage on ATEX. ICSMS system for the new safeguard clause procedure The Chairperson explained that the new Union safeguard procedure as described in Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2014/34/EU should be developed through the "Information and Communication System on Market Surveillance" (ICSMS) 246, as for

348 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 the other EU legislation aligned to Decision No 768/2008 of the New Legislative Framework 247. She invited the Member States to implement their safeguard clause procedures into the system to ensure the smooth operation with respect to the information provided, the deadlines and the outputs: in fact, ICSMS would be the preferred way to use, even if also in parallel with the available spaces in CIRCABC. COM presented the latest information available on ICSMS, from the services in charge of the system as well as from the latest meeting of the Expert Group on the Internal Market for Products held on 3 June The implementation of the technical tool for the safeguard procedure was completed, to allow the Member States authorities to insert the information on the measures taken against a product and to send to the Commission as well as to the other Member States, an alert which would start the 3 months period to raise objections. The related notifications would be sent to the competent members in their designated mailboxes. Without any objection, the measures would be considered justified and the Member States should take consequent action; otherwise, the Commission would investigate the issue to determine whether the measure was justified or not. Study on the impacts of possible amendments to the ATEX, the Machinery, and the Pressure Equipment Directives with respect to equipment intended for use in the offshore oil and gas industry COM informed that the Study was completed and the Final Report was published on the Joint Research Centre (JRC) website 248 in April JRC gave a presentation on the part of the Study related to ATEX. After explaining the background and rationale of the work, both at European and international level also mentioning the relationship and differences between the ATEX legislation and the IECEx system respectively, as well as the API standards, he considered the different policy options with respect to sectorial legislation, to reach some conclusions on the current situation and the future perspectives. COM confirmed that the results of the Study, as well as the comments provided by the sectorial working parties members, would be taken into due consideration for possible future legislative initiatives in the concerned sectors. The JRC presentation would be circulated in CIRCABC. Action III COM, to circulate in CIRCABC the presentation given at the meeting by the JRC representative. 4. ATEX Administrative Co-operation (AdCo) Group UNITED KINGDOM, as the current Chair of the ATEX Administrative Co-operation (AdCo) Group, reported on the main issues discussed and the results of the last meeting (the 26 th ) held in Brussels on June Among them, the ongoing work for the horizontal market surveillance guidelines, agreed in the group of AdCo Chairs and open for comments by October Other specific market surveillance issues in the ATEX sector included the new procedure for safeguard clauses through ICSMS, cross-border cooperation and activities, customs checklist, etc. On technical issues, they concerned

349 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 certification of fuel dispensers, fork-lifts trucks and combined equipment, compliance of industrial fans, standardisation for vacuum cleaners, certification of bursting disks under the Pressure Equipment Directive, and drum pumps for flammable liquids. Also, more discussions were related to the Borderline list and the relationship between the Machinery and the ATEX Directives. The next meeting of the ATEX AdCo Group should take place in mid-february As usual, the relevant working documents and reports on the meeting would be available on the relevant CIRCABC Interest Group Proposals for revision/improvement of the ATEX 2014/34/EU Guidelines Borderline list - ATEX products Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/03 COM introduced the latest version of the ATEX Borderline list, on the basis of the inserted in the new Guidelines, with the still pending issues related to "Cable reels" and "Power transmission belts". The list was adapted to Directive 2014/34/EU and also simplified in some cases, as for "Refrigerators" with a reference to a specific section in the Guidelines. More simplification could be made according to the ongoing discussions. NETHERLANDS thought that the section on "Ex Components" should be deleted from the list. Belts should not be considered as protection systems according to the scope and definitions of the Directive. For cable reels, the classification was correct but the reasoning comments should be improved. And, concerning "Fire extinguishers", they should not be considered as "Protective Systems" as they would be used after an explosion. DENMARK agreed on fire extinguishers but still they should be considered within ATEX, during the normal use. GERMANY expressed support to the Borderline list as it was presented. COM asked the members to provide written comments on the latest version of the Borderline list, in particular on the issues raised at the meeting and the proposals for improving, until 30 September After that, a written procedure for the approval of a revised list should be launched until 31 January 2017, to include it into the next revision of the ATEX Guidelines in Action IV ALL, to provide written comments on the latest proposals for the list, until 30 September 2016, as a basis for a written procedure for approval of a revised/improved list until 31 January 2017, for the next revision of the ATEX Guidelines in Section 168: Requirements in respect of safety-related devices (control systems) Doc. ATEX_WG/16/1/08 rev.1 UNITED KINGDOM introduced the revised paper on guidance on control systems and the ATEX Directive, as an answer related to a question on internal combustion equipment and integration of the different components. Some comments had been received, also from the latest meeting, to draft the last version

350 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 NETHERLANDS agreed on the text as presented. ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant remarked the need to further clarify the competences of notified bodies as third party when applying specific standards, as in this case, to avoid misinterpretations. NETHERLANDS recalled that conformity assessment bodies had to comply with the requirements of the Directive, not with those of the standards as such. COM noted the general agreement on the latest version of the UK proposal. It would be inserted into section 168 of the ATEX Guidelines, for the next revision in Action V COM, to insert the approved text into section 168 of the ATEX Guidelines, for the next revision in Section 250: Fork lift trucks Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/04 GERMANY introduced the revised version of the paper on fork lift trucks, as combined equipment machinery, from the original Consideration Paper, now integrated into the ATEX Guidelines. On the basis of the last comment and contributions, the text had been improved, but it was not adopted yet as such in the AdCo Group, as it would be necessary to extend and check it for "combined machinery" and some specific examples. UNITED KINGDOM agreed on the need for further consideration on possible combinations of machinery as internal combustion engines, and not only for fork lift trucks. COM asked to provide written comments on the latest version of the proposal for the ATEX Guidelines, to be reported at the next WG meeting. Action VI ALL, to provide written comments on the latest version of the document, to be discussed and approved in the next ATEX WG meeting. New sections 236 merging PED and SPVD and 237 on Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/05 COM presented the paper proposing to introduce into the ATEX Guidelines a new section 237 on the Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU, merging the current contents with those of section 236 related to the Pressure Equipment (PED) and the Simple Pressure Vessel (SPVD) Directives. Concerning the relationship between ATEX and RED, a question was raised at the sectorial working party (the "Telecommunication Conformity Assessment and Market Surveillance Committee", TCAM) on non-radio products functioning with radio equipment, and the related risk assessment and declaration of conformity. The text proposed was still under discussion and it was submitted to the ATEX WG members for information and consideration. NETHERLANDS pointed out that, in section 236, reference to Article 9 of PED should be corrected to Article 13 according to the new Directive 2014/68/EU; and the new SPVD replaced Directive 2009/105/EC. In addition, the sentence stating that "Nonetheless, a hot surface risk assessment shall be undertaken to ensure that any explosive atmosphere is not ignited" should be re-checked or even removed, to prevent misunderstanding. 350

351 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 GERMANY agreed on the comments made by NETHERLANDS but considered that the sentence on hot surfaces should be kept. Concerning the proposed text for section 237 on RED, they did not understand the exact meaning of the discussion in TCAM. COM thanked NETHERLANDS to spot the errors in section 236: they would be corrected in the next revision of the ATEX Guidelines. Concerning the sentence on hot surfaces, he asked the members to express their views on keeping or removing it. On section 237, he asked for comments on the proposed contents on the Radio Equipment Directive, waiting for the results from discussions in their sectorial working party. Action VII COM, to correct the text for the new section 236 on PED and SPVD as suggested by NL, for the next revision of the ATEX Guidelines in ALL, to express their views on keeping or removing the last sentence of the second paragraph in section 236. Action VIII ALL, to express their views on the proposed contents for the new section 237 on RED. 6. Directive 2014/34/EU: application questions Mobile electronic equipment Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/09 GERMANY presented a paper addressing questions to the ATEX WG on mobile electronic equipment, in particular explosion-proof smartphones and tablets of Category 2, concerning the application on the Directive and the use of the harmonised standard EN in the context of market surveillance activities. This was already presented in the ATEX AdCo Group asking the members for comments and contributions. NETHERLANDS considered that the question was quite complex, with several aspects involved, as for example the different configurations of the equipment concerned, and the contents of the standards. The specific market surveillance case on the smartphone should be discussed in the AdCo Group. Concerning standardisation, it would be related to overheating of batteries, but in any case should be carried out with respect to the essential health and safety requirements of the Directive applicable to these products. ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant asked GERMANY for more information on the different points of the document, in particular whether the referred product would be considered safe or unsafe. GERMANY said that, according to their point of view, also on the basis of the first comments received in the AdCo Group, on question 1, the Directive did not make difference between stationary and portable equipment: the same requirements should be applied to both kind of products. On question 2, an adequate harmonised standard should be required to CENELEC, with the necessary amendments on how to deal with mobile equipment. Then, on question 4, it was quite a horizontal one to be clarified by the AdCo members as well as by COM. 250 EN :2012 Explosive atmospheres - Part 11: Equipment protection by intrinsic safety "i" 351

352 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 COM confirmed that the point on suspension or withdrawal of the EU-type examination certificate by a notified body in presence of market surveillance activities carried out by a Member State, would be checked with the horizontal services in charge of internal market issues. CECOD considered that conformity assessment was not a national process, when on the contrary it would require to check the relationship between national legislation and the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC. It would be necessary also to distinguish the different kinds of devices under consideration: the general ones, and professional equipment, being the last one to be considered as Category 2, so, with the necessary intervention of a notified body. It would be necessary to pay special attention to categorisation with respect to the involvement of third parties. GERMANY explained that, for this mobile equipment of Category 2, where the clauses of the harmonised standards would not be sufficient, the manufacturers had to bring their products into conformity with the safety requirements of the Directive, when intended to be used in a specific area with potentially explosive atmosphere. The proper conformity assessment should be carried out, with the intervention of a notified body where necessary, also taking into consideration Directive 1999/92/EC. This should be reflected in the legal and technical documentation provided by the manufacturer. NETHERLANDS agreed with GERMANY on the explanations with respect to this equipment in potentially explosive atmospheres, but not on the need of compliance with the harmonised standard. Concerning EN , a proposal for revision was agreed in the relevant Technical Committee in March 2016, to modify the scope and to made it applicable also to smartphones and tablets. GERMANY confirmed the progresses in standardisation, but, according to the Chairperson of the TC, no agreement was reached among the experts yet. Until further developments there, it would be necessary to appropriately deal with the situation. ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant reaffirmed that the crucial issue would be to determine whether the product was safe or unsafe. For manufacturers as well as for the notified body, declaring the product as Ex "i", if they use an international standard and not a harmonised one, this would lead to problems in the declaration of conformity and in marking. On the other hand, it would be necessary to clarify whether the product had been recalled and/or banned, and the effective availability also through the Internet. GERMANY considered that those mobile devices, on the basis of expert risk assessment and the standard available, could represent a risk, so, as national authority, the products should be withdrawn from the market, to prevent possible damages when used in potentially explosive atmospheres. CEN-CENELEC said that, to provide an answer to the concerns expressed by GERMANY, NETHERLANDS and other parties, the standardisation experts were working on an agreement to make possible to develop a revised harmonised standard covering the requirements for mobile electronic equipment in potentially explosive atmospheres. NETHERLANDS suggested that COM could also contribute to solve the problems as soon as possible, by participating in the ongoing developments in the different working parties, in particular in the revision of the standard and supporting market surveillance. COM agreed on the need to further investigate the questions raised in the German document and invited the ATEX WG members to provide comments, also in connection with the AdCo Group and the standardisation activities in the field. The point would be followed up at the next meeting. 352

353 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 Action IX COM, to check the horizontal issues raised by the DE paper, in particular with respect to market surveillance activities. ALL, to provide written comments on the DE questions. 7. Standardisation issues ATEX Harmonized Standards COM said that the publication on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) of the last consolidated list of references of harmonised standards under the previous Directive 94/9/EC, and the first list of those under the current ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, with the same contents, took place on 8 April 2016, as indicated on the sectorial webpage 251. The next publication was already under preparation and should be launched shortly, at the end of July of beginning of August Report on the standardisation work in CEN TC 305 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/06 CEN TC 305 presented the June 2016 report of the Secretariat on the activities carried out in the last period. A complementary written report would be provided later, with more updated information on standards under development and the related transition periods. Action X CEN TC 305, to provide a written complementary report, to circulate it through CIRCABC. Report on the standardisation work in CENELEC TC 31 Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/07 COM informed that the representative of TC 31 was not able to attend the meeting, but he provided a brief written report on the activities under development in It included a mention to current concerns on the interpretation of the scope of the harmonised standard EN : (IEC-based) between the international (IECEx) level and the EU level. ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant said that different comments had been made about interpretation on the standard on optical radiation, to be discussed at the relevant Technical Committee. Information would be forwarded to the ATEX WG as well as to the AdCo Group. Report by the ATEX CEN/CENELEC Consultant Doc. ATEX_WG/16/2/ EN :2015 Explosive atmospheres - Part 28: Protection of equipment and transmission systems using optical radiation 353

354 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant presented his written report covering the period from February to June He underlined the ongoing debate on the draft international standard ISO/IEC on internal combustion diesel engines in explosive atmospheres. The reference to the proposal under development would be sent for circulation among the ATEX WG members. Action XI ATEX CEN-CENELEC Consultant, to provide the reference to a proposal on diesel engines in explosive atmospheres, to circulate it in CIRCABC. Updates on international activities at UNECE and IECEx GERMANY reported on the latest activities related to the Sectorial Initiative on Equipment for Explosive Environments (SIEEE) within the Working Party on Regulatory Cooperation and Standardization Policies (WP.6) 253 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The meeting of WP.6 planned in India in May 2016 was cancelled; the next one should take place within the meeting of the IECEx system, scheduled in South Africa on 5-9 September A point on mobile equipment would be also in the agenda, as well as other technical and market surveillance issues. 8. European Co-ordination of ATEX Notified Bodies Group (ExNBG) Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee COM informed that no new ExNBG Clarification Sheets noted by the ATEX Committee were available on the Commission's sectorial website 254. Update on current issues ExNBG briefly mentioned the open issues that should be taken into consideration for the next meeting planned in November COM confirmed that a growing number of notified bodies under the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU was already available on the list on the NANDO information system 255, as the Member State authorities sent their notification procedures and the related notification. NETHERLANDS pointed out cases when the same NB number appeared to be assigned to different bodies. COM observed that this could be due to structural changes in bodies belonging to a enterprise group. In any case the services in charge of NANDO remained active to ensure clarity and transparency in the information made available. 9. Interfaces ATEX "product" 2014/34/EU and "workplace" 1999/92/EC Directives

355 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 Information on review of Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) Directives COM reported no new information on the revision exercise of the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Directives, carried out by the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion (DG EMPL) of COM, including the ATEX "workplace" Directive 1999/92/EC. 10. Any other business EU declaration of conformity GERMANY raised a question on the contents of the EU declaration of conformity, as presented in section 227 of the ATEX Guidelines, in particular in point 5 "The object of the declaration described above is in conformity with the relevant Union harmonisation legislation", where in the comments in Table 8, "the references of the legislative acts" are required; and in point 6 "References to the relevant harmonised standards used or references to the other technical specifications in relation to which conformity is declared". Should such references include the complete title of the Directive and of the standards, or just the number? As there was some uncertainty, it would be convenient to improve the comments on the question in the Guidelines, to avoid divergent interpretations. ORGALIME though that for the reference to the Directive, the number should be sufficient, with no need to indicate the complete title or even the publication on the OJEU. DENMARK agreed on being necessary just the numbers, also for other legislation, as for example the RoHS Directive, amended many times. CECOD supported the same views: especially when declaring conformity with several EU legislations and in different languages, the numerical reference to the Directives should be enough. For the harmonised standards, it would be necessary to indicate at least the year of publication. Additional information in the EU declaration of conformity would not add value and it could be even misleading, and in any case it would be very time-consuming for maintenance of paperwork. COM agreed on proposing a complementary clarification text for points 5 and 6 of Table 8 in section 227 of the ATEX Guidelines. Action XII COM, to propose a complementary clarification text for points 5 and 6 of Table 8 in section 227 "The EU declaration of conformity" of the ATEX Guidelines. Translation of documents and provision in electronic format FRANCE raised a question on translation of documents accompanying the product, as the EU declaration of conformity, and the possibility of providing them in electronic format, to grant some more flexibility to manufacturers. CECOD made reference to the different language requirements in national legislations transposing the Directive. DENMARK mentioned that the provisions of Directive 2014/34/EU as in Article 6(2) "Manufacturers shall ensure that each product is accompanied by a copy of the EU declaration of conformity or of the attestation of conformity, as appropriate" was generally interpreted as the need to have a physical copy. This should be clarified in the Guidelines (section 74) whether also electronic format could be acceptable. 355

356 XXXV. 5 JULY 2016 COM agreed on checking horizontally the provisions for translations of documents accompanying the product (as the EU declaration of conformity) with respect to the possibility of providing them in electronic format, and to propose further clarification in section 74 of the ATEX Guidelines. Action XIII COM, to check horizontally the provisions for translations of documents accompanying the product (as the EU declaration of conformity) with respect to the possibility of providing them in electronic format, and to propose further clarification in section 74 of the ATEX Guidelines. Categorisation and marking of bucket elevators FRANCE mentioned an interpretation problem with respect to categorisation and marking of "Bucket elevators" as exposed in section 249 of the ATEX Guidelines. They would provide a written proposal to clarify some aspects of the guidance on the subject, for the next meeting of the ATEX WG. Action XIV FR, to provide a written proposal to clarify some aspects of categorisation and marking of "Bucket elevators" for section 249 of the ATEX Guidelines. 11. Next meeting date COM said that the next ATEX Working Group meeting should take place in July 2017, as it would not be possible to organise a meeting in February as usual, as the Policy Officer in charge of the sector will be out of the office during the period November January 2017, and in principle there are no urgent issues in the Agenda for that. The exact date should be fixed as soon as possible (usually two months in advance) and formal invitations would be sent to all the members in due time. 356

357 XXXVI. 11 JULY 2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems ATEX 2014/34/EU Working Group Minutes of the meeting held in Brussels, 11 July 2017 Subject: Place: Chairperson: COM Participants: Working Group of the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU Committee Albert Borschette Conference Centre (CCAB), Brussels Ms Birgit WEIDEL (COMM GROW/C3) Mr Mario GABRIELLI COSSELLU, Ms Elżbieta PAPRZYCKA, Ms Anne-Lyse MINOUX-LEGER (GROW/C3) 0. Welcome The Chairperson welcomed those present and introduced the COM participants. 1. Approval of the draft Agenda Doc. ATEX_WG/17/1/01 rev.2 The Chairperson introduced the draft Agenda. The draft Agenda was approved. 2. Approval of the draft Minutes of the last meeting on 5 July 2016 Doc. ATEX_WG/17/1/02 The Chairperson introduced the draft Minutes of the ATEX WG meeting held in Brussels on 5 July The draft Minutes were approved. 3. Information on current issues The Chairperson and COM briefly informed on the latest developments on the implementation and management of the ATEX Directive 2014/34/EU, with respect in particular to the action points from the latest meeting: confirmation that the time requirements for the transposition of the Directive for the European Economic Area (EEA) countries are exactly the same as for the EU Member States, it is to say, 19 April 2016; and availability of the link to the EUR-Lex page on "National implementing 357