CONSTRUCTION FIXINGS
European Commission. So, manufacturers are stuck in a situation that is difficult to explain to their customers, particularly non-European customers, who can hardly follow the complicated CPR situation anyway, and certainly cannot comprehend the delays in the ETA certification machine. The main reason for such political impasse can be found in some mistakes within the CPR, but above all in EOTA’s role within the CPR, which is completely different from the previous one it had under the Construction Products Directive. TABs (former Approval Bodies) are no longer in charge for the approval (or disapproval) of the product: On the contrary they now care about the product assessment – a sort of snapshot at one specific moment. According to the European Commission, the EOTA’s role as “judge and inspector”, performed under the CPD by the combination of the Approval Bodies, would not be suitable for the CPR anymore. Hence the conflict between the European Commission and EOTA on the EAD’s format and content, which the Commission wants to change radically in comparison with the previous ETAG. The member states that are more EOTA oriented are not happy with what they perceive as a loss of role and of image – and related loss of business. The firms that created the ‘EOTA marketing’ together with their national EOTA representatives would like to maintain the status quo as it was before the CPR. This is particularly evident in the anchors field, where mainly
two different DoPs formats are currently used in the market. The ‘keep the status quo’ firms – and some unaware firms that simply adhere to this approach – issue DoPs without performances, just
writing ‘see ETA’. The ‘empty’ DoP automatically links the user to the related ETA, as the unique reference technical document. No matter if this is against the CPR: Market surveillance does not seem to react up to now, and who fears the black wolf, when it is nowhere to be seen? Other firms, which do not want to go against the CPR and fear the risk of market surveillance, issue DoPs with performances. This is hard work, because DoPs are long and some EOTA TABs go on issuing ETAssessments in the old way, spreading performance data all over the ETAs, instead of summarising them in a copy and paste table. Due to the EOTA-EC impasse, some TABs are now trying to go back and issue national approvals. What is proposed as a help to the manufacturer (“it is better than nothing”) is in fact completely against the CPR, and against a European approach. The answer to the question ‘Is a national certification legal?’ is therefore: No, when related European certification exists. However, things should be un-blocked at the latest on 31st January 2015. This is the deadline given by the EC to EOTA
for developing the most urgent European Assessment Documents. Manufacturers are actively cooperating with TABs to deliver timely documents in accordance with the CPR. The official format of the DoP is published in the Official Journal of the European Union L159, 28th
May 2014.
Downloadable copies of this and the other delegated and implementing regulations relating to the CPR can be found here (versions are available in all EU official languages):
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/legislation/index_en.htm www.ecap-sme.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148