HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
5.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
89/21
COMMISSION DECISION
of 31 March 2011
in application of Article 7 of Council Directive 89/686/EEC as regards a prohibition measure
adopted by the UK authorities in respect of guided type fall arrester, of the type HACA Leitern
0529.7102
(notified under document C(2011) 2010)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/211/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
documents issued by EXAM BBG Prüf- und Zertifizier
GmbH (since become DEKRA EXAM GmbH) —
notified body No 0158):
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union,
— No ZQ/B 212/06,
— No ZQ/B 212/07.
Having regard to Council Directive 89/686/EEC of

21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to personal protective equipment ( 1 ), and
(4) The
UK
authorities
indicated
that
their
measure
was
in particular Article 7 thereof,
based on the fact that the guided type fall arrester
concerned failed to comply with the basic health and
safety requirements (BHSR) referred to in Article 3 of
Whereas:
Directive 89/686/EEC and, in particular, with BHSR
3.1.2.2 and BHSR 1 and 1.1.1 in Annex II to Directive
89/686/EEC. The UK authorities submitted a test report
by TUV NEL Ltd to substantiate their findings.
(1)
Article 7(1) of Directive 89/686/EEC on the approxi
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to
personal protective equipment (PPE) provides that
(5)
According to the UK authorities, in particular in the
where a Member State ascertains that personal protective
foreseeable situation where a person fell backwards
equipment bearing the CE marking and used in
before falling down (the ‘fall-back’ situation), the
accordance with its intended purpose could compromise
protective equipment did not provide adequate
the safety of persons, domestic animals or property, it
protection against all risks encountered as required by
shall take all necessary measures to remove such personal
BHSR 1 ( 2 ). As a result, the guided type fall arrester did
protective equipment from the market and to prohibit
not comply with BHSR 1.1.1 ( 3 ), which requires a user to
the placing on the market or free movement thereof.
be able to perform a risk-related activity normally whilst
enjoying appropriate protection to the highest possible
level. Further the UK authorities explained that the
protective equipment did not comply with BHSR
(2) Pursuant
to
Article
7(2)
of
Directive
89/686/EEC,
the
3.1.2.2 ( 4 ) because tests showed that, under foreseeable
Commission is required, after consulting the parties
conditions of use, the vertical drop of the user was not
concerned, to declare whether it finds such a measure
minimised to prevent collision with obstacles and the
justified or not. If the measure is found justified, the
braking force exceeded the threshold value at which
Commission shall inform the Member States so that
physical injury might occur.
they can take all appropriate measures with respect to
the equipment concerned, in accordance with their obli
gations under Article 2(1) of Directive 89/686/EEC.
The UK authorities further indicated that they intended to
launch a formal objection pursuant to Article 6 of the
Directive against standard EN 353-1 — Personal
protective equipment against falls from a height — Part
(3) On
31
January
2008,
the
UK
authorities
notified
to
the
European Commission a measure prohibiting the placing
1: Guided type fall arresters including a rigid anchor line,
on the market of a guided type fall arrester, of the type
which refers to standard EN 364 — Personal protective
HACA Leitern 0529.7102, manufactured by HACA
equipment against falls from a height — test methods.
Leitern – Lorenz Hasenbach GmbH u. Co. KG, Diessel
strasse 12, 65520 Bad Camberg, Germany (HACA).
(6) On
1
August
2008,
the
Commission
wrote
to
the
manu
According to the documents submitted to the
facturer and, on 26 September 2008, to the notified
Commission this protective equipment was subject to
body that had intervened in the production control
the conformity assessment procedure set out in
Article 11A of the Directive, attested by the following
( 2 ) BHSR 1 — General requirements applicable to all PPE.
( 3 ) BHSR 1.1.1 — Ergonomics.
( 1 ) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.
( 4 ) BHSR 3.1.2.2 — Prevention of falls from a height.

---

L 89/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
5.4.2011
phase according to Article 11A of Directive 89/686/EEC,
The UK considered that the use of a steel weight for the
inviting them to communicate their observations
dynamic performance test gave more reliable results than
regarding the measure taken by the UK authorities.
a sand bag and could explain the difference between the
results obtained by TUV NEL and those obtained by
DEKRA EXAM.
(7) In
their
reply
dated
28
October
2008,
HACA
contested
the findings of the tests carried out for the UK authorities
by TUV NEL. In particular, they emphasised that their
Concerning the ‘fall-back’ test, the UK had carried out
equipment was safe to use and prevented falls from a
tests using an anthropomorphic dummy in order to
height, including ‘fall-back’, if used with the correct types
simulate as closely as possible the foreseeable ‘fall-back’
of belt. HACA further pointed out that the test carried
situation. The results of these tests had shown that the
out by TUV NEL did not comply with the requirements
HACA fall arrester did not adequately prevent a fall in
of standard EN 364 which did not foresee the use of an
that situation. These results also revealed a deficiency in
anthropomorphic dummy.
the relevant harmonised standard EN 353-1 since the
standard did not take account of the ‘fall-back’ situation.
This was the main grounds for the formal objection
lodged by the UK against the standard.
(8) In
their
reply
dated
15
October
2008,
DEKRA
EXAM
confirmed that they had issued the relevant Article 11A
documents. DEKRA EXAM emphasised that tests had
been carried out according to standard EN 353-1 and
that the samples tested had fulfilled all the requirements
(10) The
report
of
the
independent
expert
( 1 ) concluded that
of that standard. They explained that the test standard EN
‘fall-back’, either from a standing or sitting position, is a
364 allowed the use of a steel weight or a sand bag for
foreseeable situation which is not taken into account in
the dynamic performance test. During testing, they had
standard EN 353-1.
used a sand bag for measuring the braking force which
was always below the allowed value. They observed that
TUV NEL had used a steel weight which — in their
opinion — would give higher braking forces than a
sand bag.
(11) Following the positive opinion of the Standing
Committee set up by Article 5 of Directive 98/34/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 2 ) on
19 March 2010, the Commission decided to withdraw
the reference of standard EN 353-1 from the Official
As regards the ‘fall-back’ tests using an anthropomorphic
Journal of the European Union.
dummy, DEKRA EXAM recalled that such a test was not
foreseen by EN 353-1. They agreed that the ‘fall-back’
situation was indeed a foreseeable condition of use of
such guided type fall arresters. However, this situation
was not addressed in standard EN 353-1. Depending
(12) In light of the documentation available, the comments of
on the kind of fall arrester used and the model of full
the parties concerned and the report of the independent
body harness worn by the user, accidents could occur. It
expert, the Commission considers that the guided type
was therefore necessary to pay attention to the right
fall arrester of the type HACA Leitern 0529.7102 fails to
combination of fall arrester and full body harness,
comply with BHSRs 1, 1.1.1 and 3.1.2.2 of Annex II to
which should be specified by the manufacturer in the
Directive 89/686/EEC, since it does not adequately
information given to the user.
prevent falls in a ‘fall-back’ situation, and that this non-
conformity gives rise to a serious risk for users,
(9) Due to the complexity of the file, the Commission
obtained the assistance of an independent expert. The
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Commission met the UK authorities. The UK authorities
explained the exact test methods it relied upon and
showed a video of the tests.
Article 1
The measure taken by the UK authorities prohibiting the placing
TUV NEL had carried out two series of tests for the UK
on the market of a guided type fall arrester, of the type HACA
authorities. During the second series of tests, a represen
Leitern 0529.7102, manufactured by HACA Leitern – Lorenz
tative of the manufacturer had been present. Each series
Hasenbach GmbH, is justified.
included a dynamic performance test using a steel weight
and ‘fall-back’ tests using an anthropomorphic dummy.
( 1 ) Reference No P804674.
The HACA fall arrester had failed all of these tests.
( 2 ) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

---

EN
5.4.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
89/23
Article 2
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 31 March 2011.
For the Commission
Antonio TAJANI
Vice-President

---