5a

Intergovernmental issue concerning Post Construction Assessment

Since Post Construction Assessment (PCA) of products in the scope of the Recreational Craft Directive
(RCD) has been possible, many different variations of assessments have been carried out to get a
product on the market in EEA. A pragmatic problem has been the different assessment of RCD products
made by different Notified Bodies (NB) and their subcontractors after the last amendment of the RCD in
2005. The following statements acknowledged in surveillance are:

- Some NB´s were notified to carry out PCA according to procedures set out in 2005. Thereafter
the requirement of PCA assessment has been made easier each year in each version of the RSG
Guidelines and in the Recommendations for Use.
- The above have been made without any cooperation or consent with the Member States (MS) and
their market surveillance authorities, perhaps even without the knowledge of the notifying MS.
- The main issues are the assessment of emission requirements or in fact, the lack of it. Due to a
severe competition between different NB´s, all products can wrongfully be made in conformity
with the RCD, with only referring to a document review of original engine test results (e.g. BSO)
for the exhaust limits. The exhaust emission is by fact never assessed by any physical means
(read standard) and in addition the maintenance of the engine is never taken into account.
- Unfortunately now, one or several (or a shipment of) products are assessed by reference only to
the original test results, that by fact is not equivalent to the requirements set out in the RCD.
- When the technical documentation for emission assessment is requested for, no real
documentation or in some cases no documentation at all can be found. However, the RSG
Guidelines states: “For PCA of used craft the Notified Body should take additionally into account
the history of the maintenance and use of the engine and should assess the condition of the craft
and the engine in order to be ensured about the craft's equivalent compliance with the exhaust
emission requirements”. Also, the sound emission is never tested, as these have not even been
tested originally.

From this the following can be derived:

- What is the credibility of a NB and have they adopted the changes since 2005, if any, in their own
PCA procedures, with the approval of their notifying Member State? The RCD is still the baseline
for the conformity assessment or for equivalent methods in the case of PCA.
- Does the NB involvement give any added value compared with those falsifying the conformity
assessment, as no real assessment is made and no documentation can be found?
- A used product that has possibly even had changes made to its emission configuration is never
taken into account in a PCA.
- The basic principle of assessing new products or tens of products via a PCA procedure easier is
unfair compared to those willing to comply with the RCD (i.e. PCA is a much easier way to get a
product in conformity). PCA is intended for demonstrating compliance of a (one) product.
- A general notion is that all products cannot be assessed by a PCA!!!

A way forward - proposals?

- Member States should be able to take part in the decision how a PCA procedure is made! The NB
should not in any way be able to cut the red tape and make the PCA an easier way for getting a
product on the EEA market.
- The wording in the RCD for the PCA procedure should be followed and the NB should take on the
responsibility of the technical documentation. That is why the MIC is assigned to the NB.
- The additional information given by all NB to get a PCA product on the market should be clear
and made in the same manner.
- Until we have the next amendment made to the RCD, we have to decide:

Shall we reject all PCA products for the time being, until:

a) The notifying Member States have checked that their NB´s procedures for PCA fulfils the RCD,
and
b) Member States have decided on or found an acceptable approach for PCA procedures that is
adhered to by RSG members?

Closed session – Intergovernmental discussion issue for decision presented by Finland