Trying to add clarity to Harmonised Product Standards for Fire and Smoke Products

Preamble

Following a good presentation at a meeting at the CEN meeting centre, supported with a lively discussion, the following is my interpretation of the situation at the present time (February 2020). This is a constantly moving playing field with changing rules and a lack of direct information certainly at the level where we experts try to develop the standards that we know are required on one hand but have restrictive rules on the other.

Consequently, the following is an offered good faith interpretation and no liability is accepted or implied, the information supplied changes regularly and any document still may not be accepted when presented for assessment/ enquiry etc. It is based on the presentation and the discussion that took place at the meeting referred to.

Harmonised product standards

Situation

EU court case C-613/14 (‘James Elliot’), and some others, has led to the following court decisions/conclusions:

•  hENs form part of EU law
•  EC responsibility in initiating, managing and monitoring hENs (this is indeed the case under Article 17(5) of the CPR
•  Consequently, the EC is adopting a legal approach when assessing hENs

When writing hENs follow the simple and solid rules – these are the EC criteria to allow citation in the OJEU – do not think that interpretation is allowed – it is not.

• Use the (LATEST!) structure template
• Check last thing before you send for HAS assessment and official enquiry
• For example: the latest AVCP advice is dated November 2019 – so this is quite possibly since your last WG meeting…

Do not use (when revising or generating new)

• CPD terminology
• Reference to national regulations
• Requirements (e.g. Clause 4 must be “Characteristics”)
• Installation, design, maintenance and safety provisions
• Marking, labelling and packaging clause

Must provide

• Clear scope
• Dated normative references
• Essential characteristics in line with mandate/TC answer
• No additional characteristics
• Establishing classes/thresholds: delegated act
• Dangerous substances: follow guidance docs
• AVCP: use latest guidance doc
• Annex ZA: follow the template

Some of these are very severe, particularly dated standards, because this will prevent development of related standards and their application……

Probably the best advice is to remove all the information that, as experts, we know is needed; follow the above to the letter, and perhaps use a part 2 (see below) to add all the information that we need to add to define the products more comprehensively. Whilst further time consuming, knowing the time spent on all the iterations performed already, all the information is there, and this should be a simple case of copying and re-laying out in a “standard” standard template. The business case is straightforward; “supporting the harmonised standard with relevant data”. Hopefully a simple process.

Class, level, threshold, description

• Class – series with maxima or minima – set in mandates (see later) or test standards – change in test standards (perhaps) or standardisation request (see later) not much chance of this due to available time
• Threshold – e.g. greater than or equal to – set in mandates (see later) or test standards – must be set in a delegated act – long winded
• Level – this is specifically allowed in the CPR, but must be a number – e.g. 5dB – some tolerance may be allowed, but this is not clear, but it could be tried and put in
• Description – again allowed by the CPR, but it is not simply a case of putting any of the above into words – e.g. no combustion was seen

Use of a part 2 of a standard (e.g. EN1234567-1 (harmonised), EN 1234567-2 (un-harmonised))

One option may to be use a non-harmonised second part of a standard. This can essentially include anything, as it will not be subject to assessment or cited in the OJEU. It can refer to the part 1, but the part 1 must not refer to the part 2, although it might be possible if test are involved – Clause 4 “Characteristics” in a part 1 can/must refer to Clause 5 – Test methods, where the test standard can be referenced (the standard referred to (e.g. the part 2) can contain the methods and associated pass/fail/threshold/level criteria can be listed, as this will not be harmonised.

This is already the case for products with fire resistance tests such as fire dampers so there is precedent.

Installation, design, maintenance, safety provisions, marking, labelling and packaging clause could also be included, together with any other associated standards required where different performance areas need to be clarified such as noise, pressure drops, leakage etc can be referenced – e.g. if you do it you must (shall) do it using this standard.

So, as standards are (in legal terms) guidance, this should not be an issue.           

Mandates and answers

The mandates were presented to meet the requirements of the CPD, they are essentially now frozen, so standards should only be developed using the information already shown in the relevant mandate and any previously ”accepted” answers - these should be checked with the secretariat and CEN before progressing too far.

So, if you wish to make changes these should be done via the Standardisation Request or Delegated Act route (see below). These both have time implications for various reasons.

Also, the CPR is up for review and this has implications to (see later) which may lead to the mandate basis being scrapped altogether.

Note however, any products meeting hENs that were developed to meet the CPD rather than CPR requirements are still completely legally enforceable and this is apparently stated in the CPR.

There are also references to the Interpretive Document (ID2) but these are advised as redundant.

Standardisation requests

This was essentially new to me – but this is a method by which new classes, classifications added or clarified. The reason perhaps is that it appears that this can only be done at TC level and must have oversight by individual country regulators (some of whom have simply proposed a huge number of new areas, which is unacceptable to the Commission in general) so consensus is rare. And there is a time limit of the end of April as the commission will only be working on the CPR revision and nothing else. This seems to be across product groups (similar to the mandates) not to specific products.

There are also other requirements for the addition of sustainability references and other environmental impacts amongst others – this could lead to further discussion and lack of consensus.   

Delegated Acts

Very time consuming and also needs to go through the parliament – these can be product specific, but the process is unclear, but it is run by the commission who do not have a clear understanding of the subject be it smoke or fire, or a combination or of the complexity and differences in products that are applied – but they are the law….

CPR

For the UK, this is possibly the most concerning of all. It is unlikely that we will have a huge influence here and what our legislation is likely to look like if this changes, we do not know. It is also a problem for our EU colleagues.

There is a possibility that the whole system will be overhauled. It is possible that the mandates will be disassociated, and this may lead to some hENs becoming uncited in the OJEU, so that CE marking would become impossible for these products….

CE marking and the CPR could be something completely different in the future. The change in philosophy over the past few months is due to change in personalities with the change in the commission personnel taking a different view. It is unclear how industry could influence this as it is both political and not as the positions are not elected.

The future of the CPR (From information provided):

EC evaluation of CPR (24 October 2019):

• Standardization system in support of CPR is underperforming
• Long process for developing standards
• Standards are not free and translated into all EU official languages
• Long process for delegated acts approval
• Top priority: revision of the current method of developing common technical specifications to be considered
• EC evaluation of CPR (24 October 2019):
• Public consultation: expected first half 2020
• EC decision on revision CPR: expected 2020

CEN-CENELEC BT WG 9 activities:

• Prepare guidance on core rules for drafting hENs
• Support ongoing draft SReq development for construction products
• Draft paper on EC evaluation CPR report
• Reply to EC CPR consultation

Paul White

9 February 2020