Text updated December 2014 (changes in italics).

 

In the context of the implementation of the Construction Product Regulation (CPR) and, more particularly in relation with the activities of the European Organisation for Technical Assessment (EOTA) to deliver a consistent approach to voluntary CE marking of construction products, Construction Products Europe provides expertise and support to resolve issues related to products using the EOTA route.

 

Based on the above, we would like to put forward the following proposals.

 

DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF EADS

 

TRANSPARENCY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

 

According to the Article 20(1) a) of the CPR, the development and adoption of EAD must be transparent to the manufacturer concerned and, according to the same article in c), it must also take into account the protection of commercial confidentiality.

 

Construction Products Europe’s members have observed that EAD development by EOTA is not fulfilling the prescribed transparency requirement. Occasionally, the confidentiality principle is used to justify the exclusion of industry experts from the development of EAD.

 

This claim could be justified when an EAD is developed for a single company and when the technical development is not in line with other EOTA technical documents. However, this unacceptable when drafting or updating documents already published, such as ETAG or CUAP.

 

Sometimes, the prioritising the confidentiality principle leads to overlapping of EAD and harmonised standards (published or under development).

 

In the EAD drafting process, Construction Products Europe requests the participation of the relevant industry or its representatives. In the cases where the technical content of the document is already available, we share the concern of EOTA and the EC to guarantee the principles of the CPR; however, transparency must prevail. If each expert taking part in EADs development was to sign a confidentiality agreement to protect the content of the document, this situation would be resolved.

 

Proposal: EOTA invites related-industry experts to the EAD development meetings. The CPR Working Group of Construction Products Europe volunteers to follow the dossiers and to organise the representation if required.

 

PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT OF EADS

As a consequence of the previous issue, it may happen that more than one TAB is developing an EAD for one product type and intended use. This situation is unacceptable and it is against the goal of the CPR, i.e. removing barriers to trade in the EU. Any assessment of similar products must be done according to the same rules and procedures in order to achieve comparability for essential characteristics. EOTA should guarantee a consistent development of EAD in the EU, finding the most suitable way to ensure that only a single EAD is applicable to products on the market.

 

Proposal: EOTA to develop a procedure (confidentiality agreement / panel of experts / internal reporting) to avoid the parallel development of EAD.  

 

COMPETENCE OF TABS
 

The uneven level of expertise of TABs in some specific products and assessments may have an impact in the quality of the documents developed, in particular EAD.

 

Proposal: EOTA to clarify the internal acceptance criteria for  EAD and how competence of TABs is considered in the voting rules.

 

DEVELOPMENT OF EADS BASED ON CUAPS

In the CPR, where it refers to the CPD, the role of CUAPs should be taken up by EADs. In practice, TABs cannot renew ETAs based on CUAPs because of the CPR provisions. More so, these are also blocked because the related EAD is not available. The consequence is that CE marking will no longer be allowed for some products that are placed on the market today.

 

Construction Products Europe proposes the development of EADs by the collection of all relevant information from existing CUAPs using a fast procedure to prevent discontinuous CE marking of products.

 

Proposal: EOTA to collect the information in CUAPs and adapt it to the EAD format to guarantee that ETA can be renewed under the CPR.

 

DESIGN METHODS

The new approach of EADs is focused on assessment and does not contain references to design methods. This is a fundamental change for manufacturers because this information was also relevant to the stakeholders.

 

According to our view ETAs should not contain references to design / safety factors. This information should be included in Technical Reports.

 

Construction Products Europe considers that the design methods must be developed in the framework of Eurocodes and National regulations. However, we find useful the work previously developed by EOTA because it offered a technical reference that may be the only one available to the market.

 

It must be ensured that the TRs do not contain design recommendations conflicting or overlapping even partially, with the design provisions contained in Eurocodes.

 

Proposal: EOTA to publish the design methods as complementary Technical Reports to facilitate the work of manufacturers and designers when using products assessed by TABs and keep them updated to the last version of the applicable National Regulations.

 

USE OF ETAGS AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT

 

The entry into force of the CPR and the additional agreements required to initiate the assessments of products (use of ETAG as EAD) has caused delays and problems for the manufacturers using the EOTA route. In fact the TABs are taking different approaches when using ETAG in the context of the CPR.

 

The role and content of ETA is no always clear for the TABs and may lead to misunderstanding on the market. Manufacturers are keen to support EOTA and TABs in order to improve the system.

 

Maybe the best example of inconsistency in ETA is safety factors that are integrated in some ETAs whilst others do not provide this information (even for the same product). We understand that product-related components of the partial safety factors, if any, should be clearly differentiated from the material dependant components, which are National Determined Parameters. 

 

Safety factors differ according to the applicable regulations (National Determined Parameters for Member States using Eurocodes or others if they use national laws). Therefore, any document containing such information is useful for the whole industry but may mislead manufacturers if not kept updated.

 

Proposal: EOTA to assess the use of ETAGs and to revise the ETA which may contain unclear and/or heterogeneous information.

 

DECLARED PERFORMANCE IN ETA

 

ETAs must contain the list of essential characteristics and declared performance of products. This information is used by manufacturers to draw up the DoP. Usually the information provided by the ETA is clearly organised but in some cases clear improvements should be made.

 

Proposal: EOTA to promote the use of tables that provide the declared performance in ETAs.

 

Construction Products Europe believes that the technical content of ETA should not be subject to bureaucratic requirements. TABs should not require the repetition of testing when manufacturers request additional performances to be included in their ETAs. The declaration of performance under the responsibility of the manufacturer may contain information from historic test results assessed previously by the TAB.

 

Proposal: EOTA to clarify TABs on the use of previous assessments when developing enhanced ETA under request of the manufacturer.

 

ASSESSMENT OF KITS

 

Construction Products Europe considers that the assessment of kits is a very complex issue that cannot be addressed in a "horizontal document". We suggest a specific clarification in each EAD, if required, explaining the assessment of kits. According to our views the approval of the document by the European Commission, including this assessment, will be the best way to guarantee the consistency of the system

 

Proposal: EOTA to keep an EAD specific approach when establishing the way to assess the performance of kits.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Construction Products Europe:

• Encourages EOTA to further involve manufacturers in the development of EADs and offers the expertise of its CPR Working Group to coordinate such actions.
• Supports a change in the approach of EOTA to guarantee confidentiality while keeping the required process transparency.
• Requests a solution from EOTA to speed up the process to transform CUAP into EAD in order to prevent "discontinuous” CE marking of products.
• Suggests the publication and frequent update of technical reports containing the information missing in EADs (design methods, safety factors, etc.).
• Recommends that EOTA takes the responsibility of the quality assessment of the documents developed by TABs, in particular when there is a specific request from the stakeholders.
• Encourages the use of tables that include the declared performance in ETAs.

ACRONYMS

• CPD – Construction Products Directive 
• CPR – Construction Products Regulation 
• CUAP – Common Understanding of Assessment Procedure (CPD)
• DoP – Declaration of Performance
• EAD – European Assessment Document (CPR)
• EOTA – European Organization for Technical Approvals / Assessments (CPD / CPR) – link
• ETA – European Technical Approval / Assessment (CPD / CPR)
• ETAG – European Technical Approval Guidelines (CPD)
• TAB – Technical Approval / Assessment Body (CPD / CPR)