nb-cpr all-13 114 - gnb-cpr views on how to understand the cpr

27
Page 1 of 27 GNB-CPR All Co-ordination of the Group of Notified Bodies for the Construction Products Regulation 305/2011/EU NB-CPR/All-13/114 Issued: 3 July 2013 Information PLEASE NOTE: This is a “living” document, with additional questions, and modifications to existing questions and proposed answers, being considered by Advisory Group’s Task Group on the CPR and added by CPR TechSec as we become aware of worthwhile suggestions. The first version of this document, NB-CPD/11/469, was tabled for the 30th AG meeting (11 October 2011, Brussels). Following that meeting, a revised version, NB-CPD/11/469r1, was circulated for comment from Advisory Group. A further revision was circulated to sector group officials as NB-CPD/SGs-12/033; no responses to this circulation were received, but additional information resulting from the 2 nd SCC-CPR meeting was added. The next version was uploaded 13 June 2012, with the addition of a question on Annex III regarding the omission of a requirement to give the place of manufacture in the DoP, and a question on Annex V regarding whether GNB should recommend or require that the place of manufacture should be included in certificates. Five of the most important and urgent questions were included in the GNB-CPD’s report to the 2 nd SCC-CPR meeting, 24 January 2012, ‘NB-CPD M08-CPR Jan 2012’, although the report was not tabled at the meeting, and little information was provided towards answering any of the questions. This document will continue to evolve as further questions are added, and answers are clarified. A full version of the document, or selected questions, may be submitted to future meetings of SCC-CPR. Several of the most important questions were raised at the GNB Conference on the CPR, 18 October 2012, Brussels. They were discussed by panels of experts including Commission Services personnel, and answers to these questions were given. Revision 4 of this document included those authoritative answers and further clarifications and answers received from the Commission, SG Officials and individual NBs. However, it must be understood that in the event of a dispute regarding how the CPR should be understood, only the European Court can give a definitive interpretation. In May 2013 Commission Services uploaded the first set of 14 frequently asked questions and their answers to the Europa website (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/faq/index_en.htm). Previous editions of this document were issued for the Advisory Group for discussion, under the number NB-CPD/11/469. With the CPR fully in force, this version is issued for all NBs. GNB-CPR views on how to understand the CPR General comments: This document is presented in the form of questions, and draft answers to reflect what the GNB-CPR considers to be the appropriate answer. Guidance on these answers has been sought from Commission Services, but responses have only been received regarding a minority of the questions. However, it must be understood that in the event of a dispute regarding how the CPR should be understood, only the European Court can give a definitive interpretation. A substantial proportion of the questions relate to issues that affect manufacturers rather than notified bodies. They are included because many small manufacturers rely on guidance from their NBs to assist them in CE marking their products. However, NBs responding to their clients should make clear that any information they provide from this document represents opinion rather than definitive guidance. CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Upload: sim-grig

Post on 27-Oct-2015

528 views

Category:

Documents


21 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 1 of 27

GNB-CPR

All

Co-ordination of the Group of Notified Bodies for the Construction Products Regulation

305/2011/EU

NB-CPR/All-13/114 Issued: 3 July 2013

Information PLEASE NOTE: This is a “living” document, with additional questions, and modifications to existing questions and proposed answers, being considered by Advisory Group’s Task Group on the CPR and added by CPR TechSec as we become aware of worthwhile suggestions. The first version of this document, NB-CPD/11/469, was tabled for the 30th AG meeting (11 October 2011, Brussels). Following that meeting, a revised version, NB-CPD/11/469r1, was circulated for comment from Advisory Group. A further revision was circulated to sector group officials as NB-CPD/SGs-12/033; no responses to this circulation were received, but additional information resulting from the 2nd SCC-CPR meeting was added. The next version was uploaded 13 June 2012, with the addition of a question on Annex III regarding the omission of a requirement to give the place of manufacture in the DoP, and a question on Annex V regarding whether GNB should recommend or require that the place of manufacture should be included in certificates. Five of the most important and urgent questions were included in the GNB-CPD’s report to the 2nd SCC-CPR meeting, 24 January 2012, ‘NB-CPD M08-CPR Jan 2012’, although the report was not tabled at the meeting, and little information was provided towards answering any of the questions. This document will continue to evolve as further questions are added, and answers are clarified. A full version of the document, or selected questions, may be submitted to future meetings of SCC-CPR. Several of the most important questions were raised at the GNB Conference on the CPR, 18 October 2012, Brussels. They were discussed by panels of experts including Commission Services personnel, and answers to these questions were given. Revision 4 of this document included those authoritative answers and further clarifications and answers received from the Commission, SG Officials and individual NBs. However, it must be understood that in the event of a dispute regarding how the CPR should be understood, only the European Court can give a definitive interpretation. In May 2013 Commission Services uploaded the first set of 14 frequently asked questions and their answers to the Europa website (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/faq/index_en.htm). Previous editions of this document were issued for the Advisory Group for discussion, under the number NB-CPD/11/469. With the CPR fully in force, this version is issued for all NBs.

GNB-CPR views on how to understand the CPR

General comments: This document is presented in the form of questions, and draft answers to reflect what the GNB-CPR considers to be the appropriate answer. Guidance on these answers has been sought from Commission Services, but responses have only been received regarding a minority of the questions. However, it must be understood that in the event of a dispute regarding how the CPR should be understood, only the European Court can give a definitive interpretation. A substantial proportion of the questions relate to issues that affect manufacturers rather than notified bodies. They are included because many small manufacturers rely on guidance from their NBs to assist them in CE marking their products. However, NBs responding to their clients should make clear that any information they provide from this document represents opinion rather than definitive guidance. CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Page 2: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 2 of 27

Article 1 - Subject matter Q. Which countries and member states are covered by the Regulation?

The regulation applies directly in all member states of the European Union (EU). It should also apply in other countries that adopt the Regulation into their own legislation with the approval of the Commission. This includes members of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway) who are party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement with the EU, Switzerland through bi-lateral agreements with the EU and Turkey through an EC Decision. In the future candidate countries may join the EU and adopt the Regulation. These currently include Iceland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

Article 2 - Definitions Q. If a construction product falls under the definition of a ‘construction product’ in Article 2 Point 1 and there are no harmonised technical specifications, does this mean that the ‘essential characteristics’ and compliance with ‘Basic Works Requirements’ in Annex 1 will still have to be demonstrated by the manufacturer (e.g. conformance to non-harmonised EN, National Approval)?

No, it falls outside CPD/CPR and the responsibility comes back to national requirements. (Confirmed by Commission Services FAQ 1.)

Q. In the definition of ‘construction product’ what is the meaning of “permanent manner in construction works”?

There is currently no widely-accepted definition of permanent in relation to construction products. One definition which is used is that the construction product is installed within a construction works and cannot easily be moved. Consequently, a window (EN 14351-1), wall covering (EN 15102) or carpet (EN 14041) are permanent and construction products, but a blind, chair, curtain, rug or table are not construction products as they can easily be moved to a new location within the construction works or to another construction works.

Page 3: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 3 of 27

Q. A construction product that is not covered by a harmonised technical specification may incorporate components for which there are harmonised product standards. If a component manufacturer does not place his product on the market as a construction product, and only supplies it directly to one or more manufacturers for incorporation as part of a final product, does he need to follow any harmonised product standard that would be applicable to the component, and does he need to CE mark the component?

A harmonised standard for a construction product will usually require that component parts conform to relevant standards for those components, but if it does not do so, there is no requirement for the component parts to conform. Mr Leoz made clear at the 71st SCC that Commission Services does not consider that there is any requirement to CE mark components, as they are not “placed on the market” (See also NB-CPD/11/453, minutes of the 29th Advisory Group meeting, 22 March 2011, Section 6A). However, it is understood that some MSs require CE marking of components.

Article 3 - Basic requirements for construction works and essential characteristics of construction products

CHAPTER II - DECLARATION OF PERFORMANCE AND CE MARKING

Article 4 - Declaration of performance Q. If a product complies with two or more EU Directives/Regulations, should the manufacturer produce a declaration of performance for the CPR and one or more declarations of conformity with other Directives/Regulations, or should the declarations be combined in a single document?

The GNB-CPR is not aware of any authoritative guidance on this issue. The issue is more relevant to Commission Services and Construction Products Europe.

Article 5 - Derogations from drawing up a declaration of performance Q. Will guidance or guidelines be issued for manufacturers on the derogations? And will this included examples of the use of derogations?

The Commission has been asked to produce guidance with examples of the three occasions when derogations are accepted. However, guidance has not yet been produced or promised. AdCo-CPR is also discussing the derogations but has yet to come to a consensus on their meaning or on examples for each derogation.

Q. What is the exact meaning of “individually manufactured”? The CPR does not define ‘individually manufactured’ and there is currently no authorative guidance on its meaning under the CPR. Consequently, it can be assumed that its meaning has not changed from the CPD where it was defined in Section 4.9.3 of EC Guidance Paper ‘M’.

Page 4: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 4 of 27

Q. What is the exact meaning of “non-series process”? Recital (40) of the CPR states: “The interpretative framework for the definition of ‘non- series process’, to be applied to different construction products covered by this Regulation, should be established by the Commission in consultation with the Standing Committee on Construction.” Therefore until clarification is received from the Commission and SCC, it can be assumed that its meaning has not changed from the CPD where it was defined in Section 4.9.3 of EC Guidance Paper ‘M’.

Article 6 - Content of the declaration of performance Q. Is the declaration of performance model given in Annex III mandatory for a manufacturer to follow? And does the model provide all NB information which should be declared?

Article 6(4) states “The declaration of performance shall be drawn up using the model set out in Annex III.” The CPR makes it mandatory to use the model given but does not appear to make it mandatory to follow the model exactly. The declaration of performance will however need to include all of the information as required by Article 6. This is important as the model does not appear to contain all the information which might usefully be declared, such as the name and identification number of the notified body(ies) who have carried out the AVCP tasks for the ETA. (See also Annex III.) Commission Services has stated that revision of Annex III by delegated act has a high priority, and may take place in September 2013.

Article 7 - Supply of the declaration of performance

Article 8 - General principles and use of CE marking Q. How should the CE Marking be affixed to construction products which comply with two or more EU Directives/Regulations? And how should the manufacturer affix the NB number(s)?

This is covered by Article 8.2 of the CPR. A manufacturer will need to provide all the information as required by the CPR and Directive(s) and incorporate this information into one CE marking (the Article does not refer to CE markings in the plural). Examples of CE marking are given in the harmonised standards, but these are considered to be good practice rather than mandatory. Preferably the essential characteristics for the CPR should be clearly distinct from those for other Directives/Regulations to prevent misunderstandings. NBs may wish to ensure that their NB number is reproduced correctly by manufacturers in their CE Marking and is not used to validate the relevant declared characteristics from Directives that they have not validated or been notified for.

Article 9 - Rules and conditions for the affixing of CE marking

Page 5: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 5 of 27

Q. What is the meaning of the "year in which the CE marking was first affixed" (Article 9(2))?

Minutes of the SCC meeting on 3 December 2012 (CONSTRUCT 12/960 CPR 004/3) state “The EC services confirmed that these digits should remain the same because they are the last 2 digits of the year when the product was made available on the market for the first time. If for certain products (e.g. for cement) the date/year of manufacture needs to be also indicated, this issue needs to be agreed in CEN (or EOTA if appropriate) in order to be included in the standard (independently of the CE marking).” (Commission Services FAQ 13 confirms that these digits should remain unchanged over the years.)

Article 10 - Product Contact Points for Construction Q. Is the PCP required to take responsibility for the information it provides including any liabilities if any incorrect or deficient information it provides causes damage to others?

We assume that the liability will be in accordance with the regulations/rules of MSs. NBs are nevertheless required to take out liability insurance (unless their MS assumes liability) to cover the AVCP tasks they perform in accordance with Article 43(9).

Q. Are all MS building regulations, codes and guidance in accordance with EN standards and Eurocodes? And importantly are construction product performance characteristics in accordance with hENs and Eurocodes requirements, simplified procedures allowed, etc. and are they all comprehensible to the specifier of construction products using EN standards? If not would these be viewed as being a barrier to trade?

It appears that MSs are continually updating National documents as they are reviewed, but this does mean that there will always be some delays between the introduction of hENs and the revision of national documents.

Q. Will there be a list provided of contact details for PCPs in each MS?

The Commission has published a list of Product Contact Points, which it updates periodically, available from a link on the top ‘Construction Products Regulation’ page of its Europa website (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/legislation/index_en.htm).The link to the list of Product Contact Points is also given in Commission Services FAQ 10.

Q. Will each PCP be able to provide a standard DoP and certificates in a MS language for manufacturers and NBs to use that are acceptable to National Authorities?

In the CPR in the different MSs languages there is a copy of the DoP. The GNB-CPR will continue to encourage members to translate its certificate forms into MS languages that are not currently available, and to upload translations to CIRCABC.

Page 6: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 6 of 27

CHAPTER III - OBLIGATIONS OF ECONOMIC OPERATORS Q. Are economic operators aware that construction products are not always for new build but can also be classed as consumer products (e.g. fire alarms, doors and windows) and as such consumer product regulations will also apply. The market surveillance authorities in each MS should be informed of this.

Probably, but it is useful to bring this to the attention of relevant groups if necessary.

Article 11 - Obligations of manufacturers Q. Should manufacturers and NBs limit their work to what is required by the harmonised technical specification, or are they also expected to consider the wider requirements of the Regulation? Should certification NBs limit their work to the requirements of the hEN, or should they check whether manufacturers are meeting their obligations under Article 11. (Under the CPD, such requirements were imposed by national regulations in some Member States, but these requirements would be replaced by the CPR.)

At the GNB Conference on the CPR, it was stated that NBs should limit their work to the Annex ZA of each hEN and should not be checking whether manufacturers are meeting their obligations under Article 11, as this is the responsibility of Market Surveillance Authorities. At the GNB Advisory Group meeting the following day, it was stated that some Member State authorities expect NBs to check how manufacturers are applying the CE marking. In consequence, at a subsequent meeting on accreditation to the CPR, Member State Notifying Authorities were asked to provide their views on such “deviations” from the CPR provisions. Commission Services FAQ 11 similarly states that NBs should limit themselves to the tasks detailed in harmonised technical specification.

Q. How should Point 3 “Changes in … the applicable harmonised technical specifications shall be adequately taken into account” be interpreted by a NB under AVCP systems 1+/1 or 2+? (This question and answer were taken from the report on the GNB Conference on the CPR.)

In principle it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to decide whether changes to the hEN will affect whether a construction product will continue to meet its declared performances. However, if the certifying body does not accept a manufacturer’s assessment that changes to the hEN do not require further testing/assessment or a change to the FPC, the body should raise this with the manufacturer.

Article 12 - Authorised representatives

Article 13 - Obligations of importers

Article 14 - Obligations of distributors

Page 7: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 7 of 27

Article 15 - Cases in which obligations of manufacturers apply to importers and distributors Q. Would an importer or distributor falling under Article 15 need to have their own certificate if the product falls under AVCP systems 1+, 1 or 2+, or may they draw up a declaration of performance based on a certificate issued to the manufacturer who supplied the product to them?

Manufacturers cannot transfer the right to use a certificate to importers or distributors of their products. Therefore, any importer or distributor falling under Article 15 would need to obtain their own certificate covering the manufacture of the product from a notified body - if the product falls under AVCP systems 1+, 1 or 2+. The guidance from the GNB-CPR on rebranding and subcontracted manufacture (position paper NB/CPD/AG/07/008r1) would apply in such cases, and describes methods of avoiding unnecessary repetition of work in the certification process. This guidance will be updated to refer to the CPR rather than the CPD as soon as possible.

Q. Would an importer or distributor falling under Article 15 need to have their own determination of product-type reports if the product falls under AVCP system 3, or may they draw up a declaration of performance based on a determination of product-type report issued to the manufacturer who supplied the product to them?

Manufacturers can share or cascade their determination of product-type reports to importers or distributors of their products in accordance with Article 36. They will also need permission from the notified body(ies) to share or cascade their test reports for use by the importer or distributer (see EN ISO/IEC 17025 §5.10.2 ‘Test reports and calibration certificates’ NOTE 2 “It is recommended that laboratories include a statement specifying that the test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory.”) Some harmonised standards also include procedures which importers or distributors can follow to take full responsibility for the AVCP of the product if it falls under system 3. The guidance from the GNB-CPR on sharing and cascading test reports (position paper NB-CPD/AG/06/007) would apply in such cases. It is expected that this guidance will be updated to refer to the CPR rather than the CPD.

Article 16 - Identification of economic operators

CHAPTER IV - HARMONISED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Article 17 - Harmonised standards

Page 8: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 8 of 27

Q. If a new Annex ZA is being developed by CEN and to be introduced by end of November 2011 would it be possible for the GNB-CPR and for Construction Products Europe to comment as they have an active interest in carrying out the certification and testing activities described?

CEN has developed its ‘Template for Annex ZA’ (TF 530 rev2, 2012-04) and guidance ‘How to draft clauses on AVCP’ (TF 548, rev1 2012-03), and these documents are available on CEN’s Construction web page ‘Guidance for specification writers’. However, the documents take little account of GNB concerns, such as the example DoP number having a similar format to GNB certificate numbers. It was understood that the CEN Consultants were to review the need to revise the documents at the end of March 2013. However, at the time of writing, CPD TechSec was not aware of any outcomes from a review.

Q. When can NBs expect standards with a revised Annex ZA to start appearing?

Probably at the next revision of the standard after 01 July 2013.

Article 18 - Formal objection against harmonised standards

Article 19 - European Assessment Document

Article 20 - Principles for the development and adoption of European Assessment Documents

Article 21 - Obligations of the TAB receiving a request for a European Technical Assessment

Article 22 - Publication

Article 23 - Dispute resolution in cases of disagreement between TABs

Article 24 - Content of the European Assessment Document

Article 25 - Formal objections against European Assessment Documents

Article 26 - European Technical Assessment

Article 27 - Levels or classes of performance

Article 28 - Assessment and verification of constancy of performance

Page 9: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 9 of 27

CHAPTER V - TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BODIES

Q. Will National Approvals continue to be allowed if a construction product does not meet all the performance characteristics of the applicable hEN due to batch variations? See Recital 33. Similarly will EADs include requirements for design, installation and compliance with national requirements thereby removing the need for national approvals?

If a product doesn’t meet the standard it can’t be placed on the market. If it is said to comply with the standard then there must be a declaration or NPD declared if this is allowed.

Article 29 - Designation, monitoring and evaluation of TABs Q. Is it right to think that TABs will not be notified against individual EADs?

It is expected that TABs will be notified for the broad areas in Annex IV, without any more detailed sub-divisions. Initial designations of TABs seem to confirm this.

Q. When/how will the existing ETAGs become EADs, and how will notification to them be handled?

EOTA will decide which ETAGs are suitable for use as EADs without changes in their content. Others will need to be drawn up and adopted as EADs. Notification to ETAGs that are suitable for use as EADs should be possible as soon as the ETAGs have been declared suitable.

Q. Will TABs be allowed to draft EADs in advance of July 2013 in order to issue new-style ETAs immediately on 1 July 2013?

As soon as a TAB is designated and the format of an EAD decided it should be allowed to perform the tasks it is designated for. ETAs cannot be issued until the implementing act referred to in CPR Article 26(3), which will define their format, has been passed. This Regulation cannot be adopted before 1 July 2013, and it is expected that it will be a few months beyond that date before it enters into force. (See Q&A on Article 60.)

Q. Point 4 mentions guidelines for evaluating TABs to be adopted by the Commission after consulting SCC. When will these guidelines become available?

The Commission issued on 07 November 2011 an explanatory document called “THE DESIGNATION OF TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BODIES IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS REGULATION (305/2011/EU)”.

Article 30 - Requirements for TABs

Article 31 - Coordination of TABs

Article 32 - Union financing

Page 10: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 10 of 27

Article 33 - Financing arrangements

Article 34 - Management and monitoring

Article 35 - Protection of the Union’s financial interests

CHAPTER VI - SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES

Q. Will guidance or guidelines be issued (for MSs, manufacturers, notified bodies) on the use of the simplified procedures?

Commission Services FAQ 8 explains what constitutes “Appropriate Technical Documentation” (Article 36). No further guidance on simplified procedures has yet been issued.

Q. Will manufacturers be able to use Simplified Procedures before 01 July 2013? If not micro-enterprises and SMEs will have to use the existing CPD CE marking regime in order to comply with the CPR on 01 July 2013. Simplified procedures will therefore only benefit those who are placing new products on the market after 30 June 2013.

CPR Articles 36 to 38, covering simplified procedures, apply only from 1 July 2013.

Q. What is there to stop Simplified Procedures from being abused? Large manufacturers could simply set up a SME or microenterprise to have the construction product certified and tested more easily and then license the product to larger manufacturers, potentially saving them significant sums of money. This is of most concern for systems that require extensive certification and testing of several performance characteristics (e.g. doors and windows, curtain walling, waste water treatment systems, circulation fixtures, fixed fire fighting systems, structural metallic products, structural timber products, building kits).

It seems that this will all depend on who places the product on the market and under whose name this is done. (Article 37 applies to micro-enterprises manufacturing construction products, and so it should not be permissible for a SME importing the product of a large manufacturer to use these procedures.)

Article 36 - Use of Appropriate Technical Documentation

Article 37 - Use of simplified procedures by micro-enterprises

Page 11: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 11 of 27

Article 38 - Other simplified procedures Q. Will notified product certification bodies need to be accredited, designated and/or notified in order to provide verification of Simplified Procedures using Appropriate Technical Documentation at System 1/1+ (Article 36.2) and Specific Technical Documentation at System 1/1+ (Article 38.2)?

This is a question for the Notifying Authorities and National Accreditation Bodies. At the GNB Conference on the CPR, it was suggested that the assessment of the NB to carry out these verifications will be the responsibility of the Notifying Authorities rather than being covered by an accreditation scheme. (See NB-CPD/12/546r1, the minutes of the 32nd Advisory Group meeting on 19 October 2012, Section 7C Panel Question 5.2.)

Q. What will notified bodies need to do to provide verification of Simplified Procedures using Appropriate Technical Documentation at System 1/1+ (Article 36.2) and Specific Technical Documentation at System 1/1+ (Article 38.2)?

This is a question for the Commission as the format of the Simplified Procedures has not yet been decided. Nevertheless, it was suggested at the GNB Conference on the CPR that a notified product certification body carrying out verification should expect to be provided by the manufacturer with their "Appropriate Technical Documentation", including:

• the reference to the relevant harmonised technical specification or Commission decision (Article 36, 1(a)), or the authorisation of the "original" manufacturer or system provider, and;

• an original of all test reports referred to (Article 36, 1(b, c)). (See NB-CPD/12/546r1, the minutes of the 32nd Advisory Group (AG) meeting on 19 October 2012, Section 7C Panel Question 5.2.) Similar requirements would apply for "Specific Technical Documentation".

CHAPTER VII - NOTIFYING AUTHORITIES AND NOTIFIED BODIES

Article 39 - Notification

Page 12: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 12 of 27

Article 40 - Notifying authorities Q. What steps are being taken by the Commission and the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) to ensure each MSs National Accreditation Body will be working equivalently when assessing NBs and TABs to the CPR?

With regard to the Commission, a key advance from the CPD is specifying the requirements for notification authorities in the CPR. At the 1st SCC-CPR meeting the Commission said that equivalence of accreditation bodies was a horizontal issue under the New Legal Framework. Regulation 765/2008 Article 10 requires peer evaluation of national accreditation bodies. It is assumed that the EA Multilateral Agreement (MLA) is intended to achieve this, using a peer evaluation process of accreditation bodies. Also, the Commission held a meeting to exchange information among Notifying Authorities 4 December 2012, with follow-up procedures to identify areas where closer co-ordination is required, and the intention to hold further meetings. For non-accredited bodies, the notification procedure is designed to favour bodies with accreditation certificates over those that do not possess accreditation certificates (Articles 47 and 48).

Article 41 - Requirements relating to notifying authorities Q. Point 4 – Where is the boundary between a NB giving legitimate advice to its clients and undertaking consultancy?

Points to consider in relation to what constitutes consultancy are addressed in NB-CPD/13/564 “Presentation on 'Notified bodies and consultancy’ “.

Article 42 - Information obligation for Member States

Article 43 - Requirements for notified bodies Q. Will the Commission be issuing guidelines on how to interpret Article 43 for Notifying Authorities and for National Accreditation Bodies?

Guidance is being established in stages by Commission responses to questions from MSs.

Q. How will NBs be notified to the CPR? Will there be a NANDO-CPR? When can NBs expect to be able to become notified to the CPR?

Minutes from 1st SCC-CPR meeting expected a “NANDO-CPR” to be available at the end of October 2011. It was stated that all NBs would need to be re-notified. In an email to Notifying Authorities on 16 November 2011 the Commission informed that the NANDO had been updated for the CPR and was ready to accept designations and notifications for NBs to the CPR. The first notified bodies began to appear on NANDO-CPR in January 2013.

Page 13: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 13 of 27

Q. When can NBs expect to be able to carry out certification and testing tasks in preparation for issuing certificates and test reports valid from 01 July 2013?

NBs can already carry out AVCP tasks in preparation for the CPR but should not issue test reports or certificates to the CPR to manufacturers until:

the 01 July 2013 when the CPR is fully in force, and; after notification to the CPR for the relevant harmonised technical

specification. (The relevant GNB documentation is being revised. particularly NB-CPD/AG/03/002 ‘Guidance for NBs on AVCP under the Construction Products Regulation’ and NB-CPR/AG/03/003 ‘Generic forms for NB certificates’.) Products placed on the EU market under the CPD are deemed to comply with the CPR, and manufacturers may use EC certificates of conformity or declarations of conformity issued under the CPD as a basis for declarations of performance under the CPR (Article 66).

Q. NBs are now required to be independent of the organisation and product it assesses. Does this mean NBs belonging to manufacturers will need to be de-notified?

Article 43.3 presumably means that a body owned by an individual manufacturer cannot assess products of type that it manufactures. Thus to be notified under the CPR, subsidiaries of manufacturers would need to become independent from their manufacturer owners unless they sought notification only for different product groups.

Q. What changes will NBs belonging to associations or federations be expected to take to comply with the CPR? Point 3 and 4 would seem to imply that there should be no ‘conflict of interest’ and connection between the NB and the designer, manufacturer, supplier, etc. Does this mean there may need to be management changes to the NB and any assessor should be fully independent of those being assessed (e.g. client, user)?

Whether NBs belonging to associations or federations will need to make changes will depend on how they operate at present. Any assessor should be fully independent of those being assessed. Presumably it is for the National Accreditation Body and Notifying Authorities to determine whether the NB’s structure and staffing achieves this independence.

Q. Point 10 requires NBs to “observe professional secrecy with regard to all information gained in carrying out its tasks under Annex V”. There is however no exception for NBs to transfer information from one NB to another as can be required when different NBs carry out different parts of the certification and testing of construction products.

The CPD Annex IV requires “maintenance of professional secrecy by personnel”. Presumably under either directive it is for the client to instruct the NB to share relevant information.

Page 14: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 14 of 27

Q. What accreditation standards is it possible for NBs to comply with to be accredited? Is the list below accurate and complete?

EN 45011:1998, General requirements for bodies operating product certification systems

EN ISO/IEC 17020:2004, General criteria for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection

EN ISO/IEC 17021:2006 or EN ISO/IEC 17021:2011 Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems

EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

And which of these standards applies specifically to factory production control certification bodies?

This is a matter for EA to decide. Currently, EA favours flexibility in the Alternative Approach (previously called the ‘One Plus’ Approach) which requires that NABs will agree the most appropriate accreditation standard with each NB. In general:

ISO 17025 for testing EN 45011 for most certification NBs, subject to discussion between

the NB and their NAB assessment manager. EA 2/17 may be used to fill any gaps.

EN 45011 for TABs (if accreditation required by MS). Under the Alternative Approach ISO 17021 has been seen as the most relevant for quality audit assessments and therefore to factory production control certification bodies. So if a body is accredited, for example, to EN 45011 or ISO 17020, this means that as well as meeting all of the requirements of their baseline accreditation they would have to meet the additional relevant requirements of ISO 17021 as guided using EA 2/17. It is true that ISO 17021 covers the management system rather than specifically FPC but other parts of EN 45011 and the regulation itself would point to the FPC specifics to be assessed. Overall, the ISO 17021 part would define the process to be followed rather than the criteria. EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012 ‘Conformity assessment - Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services’ is expected to be cited in the future in the OJEU. However, there is 3-year transition period from EN 45011 to EN ISO/IEC 17065, ending 1st September 2015. Furthermore, EN ISO/IEC 17065 should not be used until it has been cited in the OJEU.

Page 15: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 15 of 27

Q. Will the flexible accreditation approach (now called the Alternative Approach) where a NB notified to several Directives will be able to choose which accreditation standard(s) they will have in order to meet the requirements given in EA-2/17 "EA Guidance on the horizontal requirements for the accreditation of conformity assessment bodies for notification purposes" be the preferred option? When will this be decided? The approach has the potential to minimise additional costs for NBs in the move to the CPR, help ensure NBs are assessed consistently and is representative of the Alternative Approach used in the CPR which encourages accreditation but does not make it mandatory.

At the meeting exchanging information among Notifying Authorities (4 December 2012, Brussels), it was stressed that the accreditation process must use the appropriate accreditation standards to demonstrate that NBs meet the requirements of Article 43. EA-2/17 is mandatory for accreditation bodies, but it cannot be used to impose requirements on NBs. EA proposes to change the term “1+ approach” to the “Alternative Approach” for accreditation, to avoid confusion with System 1+ for the Assessment and Verification of Constancy of Performance (AVCP) under the CPR. However, at the “Exchange of Information” meeting, EA representatives present confirmed they would welcome a guidance document equivalent to EA-2/17 but drafted specifically for the CPR. CPR Art54-002/3.1, uploaded for AG as NB-CPD/13/560, shows that initially, Member State Notifying and Accreditation Authorities are making individual choices regarding which accreditation standards to use. To ensure consistent accreditation of NBs by NABs, EA has a peer review process which is supported by the:

Horizontal Harmonisation Committee which is responsible for the potential adoption of the flexible approach to the allocation of hENs.

EA Certification committee which covers the transition process to accreditation for Notified Bodies.

The GNB-CPR is also strongly encouraging EA to participate at GNB-CPR AG meetings.

Article 44 - Presumption of conformity Q. If a notified body is formally to presume conformity of other notified bodies’ work, will there be any circumstances when the body could refuse to accept the work of others?

This has not yet been clarified by the Commission or addressed by AG.

Article 45 - Subsidiaries and subcontractors of notified bodies

Page 16: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 16 of 27

Article 46 - Use of facilities outside the testing laboratory of the notified body Q. Will the Commission or EA be issuing guidelines for NBs to be specifically designated as competent to work away from their own laboratories? (At the 2nd SCC-CPR meeting, the Commission indicated that it would welcome a draft from the GNB-CPD suggesting what requirements might be appropriate for designating laboratories as competent to work away from their own equipment.)

Designation of NBs on NANDO as competent to work away from their own laboratories became possible from 1 July 2013. However, the Commission has not issued guidelines to assist Member States in setting requirements. The GNB-CPR intends to update its Position Paper NB-CPD/AG/03/005r2 ‘The use of manufacturer’s testing facilities by NBs’.

Q. Specifically, will a NB be designated for use of facilities outside the testing laboratory of the notified body for all tests for which it is already notified, or will it need to be designated for using outside facilities for each test individually? (It is desirable that a harmonised approach is used, which might be proposed by the Commission or EA.)

Document CPR 003/14, tabled by the Commission at the SCC meeting 3 December 2012, which included a substantial input from NBs, proposed a single designation to cover the use of any facilities for any testing within the NB’s scope. A demonstration at the SCC meeting 1-2 July appeared to show designation by individual harmonized standard.

Q. The CPR requires NBs to be specifically designated as competent to work away from own accredited facilities. Will manufacturers be able to identify which NBs are so designated? How will market surveillance be able to find out whether a NB has such a designation? (The information should be made available on NANDO, for instance within the scopes.)

Document CPR 003/14, tabled by the Commission at the SCC meeting 3 December 2012, which included a substantial input from NBs, proposed an additional page on NANDO listing the NB designated to use of facilities outside their own laboratory, which links to show the details of the designations of individual bodies. At the time of writing (3 July 2013), CPR TechSec is aware that designation on NANDO is possible, but does not know how the procedure has been implemented.

Article 47 - Application for notification

Article 48 - Notification procedure Q. Point 5 allows the Commission and MSs to object to a NB or new notification. Will there be a means to stop a NB from raising an objection with the Commission or MS about another NB if this is motivated for commercial or personal reasons?

Article 48.5 is taken from Decision 768/2008. Under the New Legal Framework, notifications under other directives are equally subject to potential objections, but this has not caused problems. Presumably either spurious objections are not raised with the Commission or MSs, or they are recognized as spurious and not taken forward.

Article 49 - Identification numbers and lists of notified bodies Q. Article 49.1 requires a single identification number to be assigned to each NB even where the body is notified under several Union acts. Under which circumstances could a NB maintain different numbers?

NBs might have different numbers for branches within different MSs, whilst an organization may gain more than one number in a single MS as a result of mergers between bodies. It is important to know what should happen to their numbers in such circumstances.

Page 17: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 17 of 27

Article 50 - Changes to the notification

Article 51 - Challenge of the competence of notified bodies

Article 52 - Operational obligations for notified bodies

Article 53 - Information obligations for notified bodies Q. Article 53.2 requires NBs to provide other NBs carrying out similar tasks with relevant information on issues relating to negative assessments and/or verifications. Will this provision be implemented, and if so, how should this be achieved? (Under the CPD, the ‘Blue Guide’ states “Notified bodies have generally an obligation to inform the other notified bodies and the national surveillance authority about all certificates suspended or withdrawn and, on request, about certificates issued or refused.” However, no mechanism for NBs to inform other NBs has ever been put in place. Providing publicly available lists of certificates refused, suspended or withdrawn risks breaching the NBs’ duty of confidentiality.)

Commission Services emphasize that as this is a requirement of the CPR, it must be respected. However, no clear guidance is yet available on what constitutes a “negative assessment”, or on what means a NB might use to inform other NBs carrying out “similar” tasks without breaking client confidentiality by releasing the information to others. The GNB-CPR AG will consider the issue further at its next meeting.

Article 54 - Exchange of experience Q. Has the Commission any plans to allow for the dissemination to National Authorities of information on changes to notification procedures such as the notification of NBs under the CPR and for horizontal notification (Annex V Clause 3)?

A first meeting ‘Exchange of Information among Notifying Authorities’ under CPR Article 54 was held 4 December 2012, Brussels, with follow-up procedures to identify areas where closer co-ordination is required, and the intention to hold further meetings.

Page 18: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 18 of 27

Q. Some variation currently exists between MSs on how their Notifying Authorities complete the notification information on NANDO-Input. This can lead to confusion when a manufacturer or NB tries to find a NB to carry out specific tasks. Examples include:

1. Notification for AoC tasks of ETAs produced using CUAPs. Only some MSs notify for product certification, FPC certification and test laboratory as required in the ETA.

2. Some MSs (and NABs) appear to be unaware that you can notify for intended use (e.g. for uses subject to regulations on dangerous substances, for uses relating to energy conservation and/or noise reduction).

3. Test laboratories can be notified at System 3 but not for tests for products under System 1.

4. Dates for “Period of validity of the notification” vary from one MS to another.

5. Some NBs have more than one NB No. (e.g. one for the test laboratory and a second for the certification body), while most other NBs have only one NB No. (Article 49.1).

Notifying Authorities will also need guidance on the new requirements introduced by the CPR to ensure equivalency of NANDO scopes of notified bodies. These include:

1. Independence of manufacturers and of trade associations as notified bodies (Article 43).

2. Designation for use of facilities away from the notified test laboratory (Article 46).

3. Horizontal notifications (Annex V(3)). If notifications are transported across from NANDO-CPD to NANDO-CPR, guidance may be needed for removal of options that were previous allowed under the CPD but not in the CPR. Examples include inspection bodies and calculation bodies. Does the Commission have any plans to harmonize notification practices more closely?

NBs would like to see greater harmonization and clarification of procedures. However, this question can only be answered by the Commission, EA or SCC. To date the Commission has provided the following answers: The NANDO manual v3.2 (Dated 15 November 2011) which Notifying Authorities use in completing and updating NB notifications using NANDO-Input specifically states or requires:

1. “Please note, however, that if the CPD Body was notified against ETAs or ETAGs (European Technical Approval Guidelines), the related technical specifications will be lost in the new grid after copy. This is because ETAs and ETAGs are no longer included in the list of technical specifications of the new CPR.”

2. The expiry date of accreditation certificate for accredited NBs or the review date for non-accredited NBs to be listed. This will necessitate the regular updating of NANDO scopes by all NBs if their NANDO scopes are to remain valid.

It is clear that under the CPR, notification will only be possible to hENs and EADs, not to ETAs. Taken together these changes in notification practice will result in more up to date NB scopes on NANDO. A first meeting ‘Exchange of Information among Notifying Authorities’ under CPR Article 54 was held 4 December 2012, Brussels. However, at that meeting, the Member State Notifying Authorities reserved their right to maintain their own, non-identical designation procedures.

Page 19: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 19 of 27

Article 55 - Coordination of notified bodies Q. When can the GNB-CPD be allowed to call itself the GNB-CPR?

At the 32nd GNB-CPD Advisory Group meeting, it was agreed to change the name of the interest group from GNB-CPD to GNB-CPD from the date of the next Advisory Group meeting, which was held held 20 March 2013. Commission Services has approved this change, commenting that as NBs have been notified to the CPR, and the group is currently working on guidance for both the Directive and the Regulation, it could bear both names until 30 June 2013.

Q. Can the GNB-CPD produce guidance for NBs on the CPR before it becomes the GNB-CPR?

Yes.

Q. As the GNB is recognised in the CPR does this mean that the guidance of the GNB will have more authority than under the CPD?

The GNB is pleased to see that its position has been formalized and that it has a clear responsibility for co-ordination of notified bodies. As a result its guidance should be considered more authoritative. This issue was raised for discussion at the GNB Conference on the CPR. However, the responses tended to stress that GNB position papers should not be used to revise or contradict standards. But the GNB has always known and respected this, except in circumstances where there are problems with the implementation of a standard, and the CEN/TC has agreed that a sector group position paper should be used to anticipate the CEN TC’s planned changes to the standard.

Q. If NBs are to participate in the work of the GNB, how are MSs going to force NBs to register on CIRCABC or encourage them to attend SG meetings? Since it is the responsibility of the National Accreditation Body (NAB) in each MS to assess NBs, it could be argued that the NAB should enforce registration on CIRCABC as part of obtaining NB status, which in turn would need to be enforced by their parent organisation the European co-operation for Accreditation (EA).

It is important for NBs that all should be required to engage with relevant sector groups and follow the resulting guidance. It is becoming more common for Member State notification authorities to check, or require their accreditation bodies to check, that NBs are following the development of GNB guidance.

CHAPTER VIII - MARKET SURVEILLANCE AND SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES

Q. Will MS contact points hold details of market surveillance authorities?

Commission Services intend to provide a publicly available list of market surveillance authorities.

Article 56 - Procedure to deal at national level with construction products presenting a risk

Page 20: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 20 of 27

Article 57 - Union safeguard procedure

Article 58 - Complying construction products which nevertheless present a risk to health and safety

Article 59 - Formal non-compliance

CHAPTER IX - FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 60 - Delegated acts Q. Will delegated acts only be allowed once the CPR is fully in force?

It was stated at SCC that there can be no delegated acts before 1 July 2013. Article 60 is one of the Articles that apply only from 1 July 2013 (see Article 68). Changes to the CPR will not therefore be possible before 1 July 2013.

Article 61 - Exercise of the delegation

Article 62 - Revocation of the delegation

Article 63 - Objections to delegated acts

Article 64 - Committee

Article 65 - Repeal

Article 66 - Transitional provisions Q. How long will the transitional period be? In some hENs (e.g. EN 1317-5) transitional arrangements for the use of historical data last for 3 years after the end of the co-existence period (i.e. until 1st July 2016 if this approach was to be used). ETAs currently have an expiry date of 5 years from issue. Would a longer period be required for manufacturers to prepare and for NBs to carry out the work on complex construction products?

There appears to be no time limit to the transitional provisions in Article 66 points 1-3. A manufacturer should be able to base a DoP on a CPD certificate of conformity or declaration of conformity to a hEN so long as the hEN and the certificate remain valid. However, if the product conforms to a European Technical Approval, the manufacturer will need to seek a European Technical Assessment, or another route, to continue CE marking the product after expiry of the European Technical Approval. (Commission Services FAQ 6 confirms this.)

Page 21: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 21 of 27

Q. Point 3: how can declarations of performance based on European Technical Approvals issued without guidelines that require surveillance (systems 1+, 1 or 2) be supported after 1 July 2013?

At the 74th SCC meeting (25, 26 March 2013, Brussels) consensus was reached that a body notified on NANDO-CPD for a particular Approval or Approval Guideline, and considered competent by the Notifying Authority, may continue certifying the Approval for the remaining duration of its 5-year life.

Q. In MSs that decided not to make CE Marking mandatory under the CPD, but where construction products have been placed on the MS market, will those products that remain on the market need to be affixed with the CE marking before 1 July 2013?

In principle the Regulation applies to individual items placed on the market, and so items already placed on the market before 1 July 2013 should not be affected. (Commission Services FAQ 3 confirms this.) However, it could be difficult to distinguish between “old” and “new” products.

Article 67 - Reporting by the Commission

Article 68 - Entry into force

ANNEX I - BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS

ANNEX II - PROCEDURE FOR ADOPTING A EUROPEAN ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT Q. Is the procedure to be elaborated upon? It is possible that SCC may provide further guidance on this procedure if it is

considered necessary. In any case, EOTA is likely to set out more detailed procedures.

ANNEX III - DECLARATION OF PERFORMANCE Note: Commission Services has stated that revision of Annex III by delegated

act has a high priority, and may take place in September 2013. Q. Should the declaration of performance state that it has been drawn up under the CPR.

Question for the Commission or SCC.

Q. As the DoP is to be in languages required by the member state where the product is made available (see Article 7 Point 4), there should be standard declarations of performance in each language. If so who is to provide these and where?

The CPR is published in all official languages and so these will contain translations of the template for the DoP.

Page 22: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 22 of 27

Q. Number of declaration of performance: Will a standard format be established for the DoP number, with a format that stakeholders are unlikely to confuse with a relevant certificate number? (Commission Guidance Paper ‘D’ defines the format for notified body certificate numbers under the CPD as “nnnn-CPD-zzzz”, where “nnnn” is the identification number of the Notified Body and “zzzz” is the individual number given by the certification body. Inevitably, under the CPR this code will be changed to “nnnn-CPR-zzzz”.) Drafts of CEN’s proposed template for Annex ZAs included an example of a DoP number, 001CPR2013-07-14, which has a rather similar appearance to a certificate number and risks stakeholder confusion between the Certificate and Declaration of Performance.)

Question for the Commission, SCC or CEN. It was understood that the CEN Consultants would review the need to revise the documents at the end of March 2013. This would give an opportunity for CEN to accommodate the requests from the GNB and Construction Products Europe to change the example DoP numbering. However, the GNB-CPR is not aware of such a revision. Also, Recital (26) of the CPR states “It should be possible for the declaration of performance to be numbered in accordance with the product-type reference number.”

Q. Point 4: Should the declaration of performance include the place(s) of production, possibly in coded format. (Under the CPD this is required by GP ‘D’, and is required without the option of coding by most current Annex ZAs, but it is not required by Annex III or elsewhere in the CPR.)

Question for the Commission or SCC, and also for CEN. (AdCo-CPD and the national market surveillance authorities are key stakeholders regarding the content of DoPs.)

Q. Point 7: Is a DoP under AVCP System 3 required to include the number(s) of the NB(s) that issued test/calculation reports?

Question for the Commission or SCC.

Q. Point 8: Should not the DoPs under ETAs include the name and identification number of the NB if testing and/or certification tasks were undertaken by a NB, in line with Point 7 for DoPs under hENs?

It seems appropriate that if a NB undertook testing and/or certification tasks under an ETA, the DoP should give the same NB information as for a construction product covered by a harmonised standard.

ANNEX IV - PRODUCT AREAS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TABS Q. Table 1 does not take into account some construction products and new product areas that maybe developed due to innovation. Also, some products may fall between more than one product area. How are these issues to be resolved? By MSs and their NABs? Will a MS be able to designate other product areas as implied in Article 29(1)?

It is expected that EOTA will resolve such problems.

Page 23: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 23 of 27

ANNEX V - ASSESSMENT AND VERIFICATION OF CONSTANCY OF PERFORMANCE Q. Point 1, all AVCP systems. Manufacturers or notified bodies are responsible for determining the product-type, but hENs written for the CPD refer instead to “initial type-testing”. Will any guidance be provided on how to determine the product-type in accordance with such standards until they are revised in line with the CPR?

Question for the Commission, SCC or CEN.

Q. Point 1, all AVCP systems. Under the CPD, GP ‘D’ requires certificates to identify the place of production, possibly in a coded format. For certificates issued after 1 July 2013, should the GNB require, under the authority of CPR Articles 43 (11) and 55, that NBs identify on their certificates the factory(ies) inspected, or should the GNB modify its guidance to only recommend that this information be included? If GNB requires the factory(ies) inspected be identified on certificates, can this information be coded or must the address be stated?

Question for the Commission regarding the extent of the GNB’s authority. The GNB Advisory Group has chosen, in its updating of NB-CPR/AG/03/003 to address the CPR, to require NBs to identify the manufacturing plants inspected, and to permit the use of a coded format to identify these places of production.

Q. Point 1.3(b) – opening line should read “the notified factory production control certification body……”. As bodies involved in the assessment and verification of constancy of performance are defined in Annex V - Point 2.

Yes, it appears to be a minor error in the text of the CPR, but it can be read as “notified factory production control certification body” to resolve any problems.

Q. Points 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3: Some CPD hENs do not provide sufficient information for a manufacturer to declare all essential characteristics and all performances in the declaration of performance as required in Annex III. CEN is aware of this problem (see the Executive Summary of CEN Report ‘GENERAL SITUATION OF EUROPEAN STANDARDIZATION UNDER THE CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS DIRECTIVE/REGULATION - November 2012’ “….. a number of harmonised product standards will need amendments to allow for the establishment of DoP (Declaration of Performance) as from the 1st July 2013.”) and has issued model templates for some hENs, for example EN 12094 (CEN/TC 191/WG 6/TG 1 N 334). Should notified certification bodies issue certificates for the relevant essential characteristics in accordance with the current Annex ZA or the revised CEN templates?

The status of the revised CEN templates is unclear. They are however CEN’s clarification of the obligation for manufacturers to declare all essential characteristics and all performances in the declaration of performance as required by Annex III. They also indicate an intent by CEN to revise the Annex ZA’s of hENs in accordance with the revised CEN templates. As a result, they probably represent the best available practice. NBs should therefore follow the revised CEN templates where they exist and may inform of the revised CEN templates if they believe manufacturers are not aware of them. NBs cannot however require the manufacturers to follow the revised CEN templates. It is for the manufacturers to inform NBs of the essential characteristics on which to carry out AVCP tasks. A full list of CPD hENs which require a revision of Annex ZA is not currently available. NBs consider EN 54, EN 12101 and EN 12259 are all in need of revised CEN templates.

Page 24: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 24 of 27

Q. Points 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4: Will all testing under AVCP Systems 1+, 1 and 3 need to be carried out by NBs?

Under AVCP Systems 1+ and 1, the notified product certification body is responsible for product sampling and testing, in accordance with the rules laid down in the technical specification, but the body may subcontract sampling and/or testing to other organizations. Under AVCP System 3, most tests are undertaken by the notified testing laboratory(ies) commissioned by the manufacturer, but a laboratory may subcontract individual tests. Subcontracting by NBs is established by GP ‘A’ under the CPD, and governed by Article 45 of the CPR. There is no substantial change between the requirements for subcontracting under GP ‘A’ of the CPD and Article 45 of the CPR. Also, some harmonised standards assign certain tests under System 3 to the manufacturer. This possibility is not stated in either the CPD or the CPR, but it is set out in GP ‘K’ for the CPD. It is not expected that the position will change under the CPR.

Q. Point 1.4 (b): Under AVCP System 3, is there any requirement for the manufacturer to limit the number of NBs it contracts to undertake and report different tests or calculations on a product? (Under the CPD, for AoC System 3, GP ‘K’ section 4 clause (4) states: “… the tests to be carried out in respect of any one Essential Requirement are the responsibility of a notified test laboratory … . GP ‘K’ section 4.1.2 clause (4) is somewhat more restrictive and states: “…the tests regarding the same Essential Requirement must be carried out by the same laboratory …” . ) (If the number of laboratories is to be restricted, future guidance should recognize that in practice it must be the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that it he does not contract more than one laboratory to undertake testing for one Essential Requirement, and that the test samples supplied for all ITT testing are equivalent. This is because a laboratory may not be fully aware of how the test sample(s) were prepared, or how the manufacturer intends to use its test report. However, it would be highly restrictive to require that the same notified test laboratory should undertake all of the tests regarding the same Essential Requirement, as some tests are very specialized, and few laboratories may be able to undertake all of the tests required for one Essential Requirement under some standards. Asking a “lead” laboratory to take responsibility for tests that it is not notified to perform, and which will be undertaken by other laboratories, is probably unwise, as the “lead” laboratory would not know how the test samples were prepared, and is unlikely to have expertise in the tests undertaken by other laboratories. But allowing the manufacturer to appoint more than one laboratory would leave the manufacturer to combine test reports into the “determination of the product-type”, and would not prevent a manufacturer from tailoring samples to perform well at specific tests.)

At the GNB Conference on the CPR, Commission Services supported the conclusion that, under CPR AVCP system 3, a manufacturer is free to contract as many NBs as it wishes to undertake aspects of testing towards the determination of the product type.

Page 25: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 25 of 27

Q. Point 2 – Which organizations may carry out AVCP tasks on a product conforming with a European Technical Assessment?

At the SCC meeting 1-2 July 2013, the expectation was that AVCP tasks on a product conforming with a European Technical Assessment would need to be undertaken by a NB. If a TAB wished to undertake AVCP tasks on its European Technical Assessments, it would need to set up a linked body that could demonstrate its decision making was independent.

Q. Point 2 – No reference is made to inspection or calculation bodies. Does this mean NBs will no longer be able to be notified as these types of bodies? Similarly, will there be any special requirements for NBs that carry out calculation as part of their test laboratory status?

The CPD recognised inspection bodies, and GP ‘A’ enabled them to be notified, but also permitted sub-contracting to non-notified bodies. Under the CPR, bodies cannot be notified for inspections. The onus is on certification bodies to take responsibility for their subcontractors (Article 45). The CPD made no reference to calculation bodies. They should be considered to be included in the CPR as “a notified laboratory which … otherwise determines the characteristics or performance of materials or construction products”.

Q. Point 2. (3) requires test laboratories to be notified. Switzerland is currently the only Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) state to have NBs to the CPD. Other MRA countries, such as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and United States do not have NBs to the CPD. Both Canada and New Zealand are known to export construction products to the EEA while Canada is known to carry out its own testing to hENs. Will countries with a MRA and PECA (Protocols to the Europe Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products) with the Commission be required to have NBs in their countries if they are carrying out testing of construction products for export to the EEA? And similarly how about other countries exporting to the EEA who have no MRA (e.g. Serbia)? Will all the countries affected need training and will the Commission be providing support? Do the MRA and other states need representation at SCC and GNB-CPR AG?

Any products exported to the EEA will need to be CE marked if required under the CPR, but this could be done with the intervention of any appropriate NB. A suitable MRA and PECA makes it possible for a local body to become notified for that work, but there is no requirement to have a local indigenous body, or use one if any exist. CPD TechSec believe that all countries with bodies notified under the CPD or CPR have the right to be represented on SCC, although as observers if they are not Member States of the EU. CPD TechSec believe that all countries with bodies notified under the CPD or CPR have the right to be represented on the GNB-CPR AG (and both non-EEA states, Turkey and Switzerland, currently exercise this right). Being a country that exports construction products to the EEA does not, on its own, give any rights to representation on SCC or the GNB-CPR AG. It is for the Commission to decide how much, if any, training and support to provide both inside and outside of the EU.

Q. Point 2 - Will EC Certificates under the CPD become EU Certificates under the CPR? (Presumably EC = European Communities and EU = European Union).

The GNB Advisory Group has chosen, in its updating of NB-CPR/AG/03/003 ‘Generic forms for NB certificates’ to use the terms “certificate of constancy of performance” and “certificate of conformity of the factory production control”. The CPR Annex III uses these terms, whilst Annex V uses “certificate of constancy of performance of the product” and “certificate of conformity of the factory production control”.

Page 26: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 26 of 27

Q. Point 2 - Will the Commission be preparing new example certificates for use by NBs? If not can the GNB-CPR prepare example certificates (in English) for NBs to follow? And is there a need for translated certificates in each of the MS languages for market surveillance reasons, and if so who has responsibility for producing these? It would seem unreasonable for a manufacturer or NB to produce these by itself for all MS languages. Would it be possible for the Commission to pay selected notified bodies to produce certificates in each required MS language?

The GNB considers that it is the most appropriate body to provide example certificates under the CPR, as it does under the CPD. The GNB has published its forms for NB certificates to conform with the CPR. The CPD requires certificates to be in the official language or languages of the MS, but the CPR does not set a language requirement for certificates. In fact it is not thought to be common practice under the CPD to provide translations of certificates into all relevant languages unless a product is offered to a government-type body, such as a highway authority, which is likely to request a copy of any certificate and/or declaration of performance in its own language. Presumably proactive market surveillance could also demand certificates in local languages. As the certification body is responsible for its certificates, this responsibility will apply to any translations. The GNB-CPR has been asking its members to provide translations of its example CPD certificates in all official EU languages, but with limited success. The GNB proposes to request assistance or funding from the Commission towards providing translations of example CPR certificates into many languages.

Q. Point 3 – Will there be any special procedures for horizontal notification? There will need to be a guideline or similar to ensure all NBs are assessed to the same requirements. How will this horizontal notification be shown on NANDO and on NB NANDO scopes? Under Article 48(2) 2nd para. the Commission is to receive a hard copy from each Notifying Authority as the NANDO-CPR website may not be able to display this information.

Horizontal designation of NBs on NANDO for the 3 aspects of fire testing listed in Annex V became possible from 1 July 2013. Designation appears to be at the level of the horizontal test method. However, horizontal designation for aspects of sound testing is not yet possible, whilst horizontal test standards for emissions of dangerous substances are not yet available. The Commission has not issued guidelines to assist Member States in setting requirements for horizontal notification. At the time of writing (3 July 2013), it seems that no bodies have yet been designated horizontally, and CPR TechSec is not aware how such bodies will be shown on NANDO.

MISCELLANEOUS Q. Are EC Guidance Papers to be withdrawn? If so will they be reviewed to see if there is any guidance worth retaining? Are there any plans for new EC guidance paper to cover new issues or to clarify matters?

At the GNB Conference on the CPR, Commission Services stated that the Guidance Papers will remain as an archive of useful information and can be referred to as agreed guidance when not in conflict with the CPR.

Page 27: NB-CPR All-13 114 - GNB-CPR Views on How to Understand the CPR

Page 27 of 27

Q. If the EC Guidance Papers are to be withdrawn will there be a Q&A paper or a webpage where NBs can go and find out the answers to the most common questions? If so will this be updated regularly?

In May 2013 Commission Services uploaded the first set of 14 frequently asked questions and their answers to the Europa website (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/faq/index_en.htm).