This page specifies the processing and distribution of a draft for CENELEC Enquiry.
1.1 Once the Technical Body (TB) has approved the finalized draft received from the Working Group (WG) Convenor (prepared in accordance Internal Regulations – Part 3) (see Process – Drafting of European Standards), the Technical Body Secretary sends it to CCMC for processing in two electronic formats, an agreed revisable WORD file and a non-revisable PDF file, together with the completed 'Transmission Notice'. The delivery of the Enquiry draft to CCMC shall be done within 34 weeks of the registration/activation of the NWI.
1.2 CCMC checks that all the documentation and electronic files have been supplied, that the appropriate information has been provided on the 'Transmission Notice' and that the deliverable corresponds to the database records.
1.3 Within five weeks, CCMC allocates a reference number, edits the text and makes it available though the FTP-server to all the National Committees (NC) in order to trigger the 8-week period of preparation prior to National Enquiry. At the same time, CCMC sends the document via E-trans to AFNOR, BSI and DKE for the Translation procedure of the remaining two official CENELEC language versions. During these 8 weeks any NC can request an extension of up to 4 weeks of the Enquiry ballot (by default the Enquiry is 12 weeks long). According to the Translation Procedure AFNOR, DKE and (when relevant) BSI can request extensions to the default 8 weeks translation period.
1.4 At the same time CCMC sends harmonized drafts requiring assessment to the relevant New Approach Consultant(s).
1.5 The relevant New Approach Consultant(s) provide(s) the assessment of the draft within 28 days to CCMC.
1.6 The relevant NCs prepare the translations of the remaining two official CENELEC language versions and return them to CCMC within the specified timescales (default 8 weeks). In the case of unavailable translations, the relevant NCs will supply at least the translation of the title.
1.7 Immediately after expiry of the time period, CCMC dispatches the draft EN (prEN) in the available language versions (together with the assessment(s) of the New Approach Consultant(s), where appropriate) to the CENELEC National Committees, the Partner Organizations, the Affiliates, the EC and EFTA Secretariat, the Technical Body Chair and Secretary. This is done on a weekly basis.
CCMC ensures that a corresponding ballot is open on the CENELEC electronic voting system. Late incoming translations to CCMC are circulated at the next available opportunity.
1.8 The CENELEC National Members submit their vote and their comments, using the 'Commenting Form', through the CENELEC electronic voting system within the prescribed 12-week voting period. The CENELEC National Members are required to cast unconditional votes and to justify any negative vote. In case of positive vote or abstention the justification is optional.
Second Enquiry drafts are submitted to the same conditions as a first Enquiry.
The Enquiry is a weighted vote according to Internal Regulations - Part 2 clause 6.2.
In addition, the CENELEC Members confirm, or comment on, the proposed date of announcement (doa), date of publication (dop) and date of withdrawal (dow). Any disagreement concerning the proposed doa, dop or dow is recorded by the CENELEC Members in the Commenting Form.
1.9 During Enquiry, the Societal Stakeholder Organizations (SSO) that are referred to as Annex III organizations in EU Regulation 1025/2012 and that signed a partnership agreement with CEN or CENELEC have the right to submit an Opinion on the draft standards.
The SSO Secretariat fills in the Opinion template and sends it to the CENELEC Technical Board (BT) Secretariat
(firstname.lastname@example.org) for handling following the agreed mechanism.
1.10 During Enquiry, AFNOR, BSI or DKE consult their stakeholders on whether translation into all the official language versions prior to formal vote is needed. If deemed necessary by the stakeholders, e.g. in case of highly sensitive draft standards, AFNOR, BSI or DKE may request an optional translation period at Formal Vote stage.
1.11 The CENELEC electronic voting system automatically closes the ballot once the deadline is reached. After the deadline of the CENELEC Enquiry, CCMC establishes the voting report, compiles the comments received and dispatches both the voting report and the comments to the CENELEC National Committees, the Partner Organizations, the Affiliates, the EC and EFTA Secretariat, the Technical Body Chair and Secretary.
1.12 The Technical Body Secretary makes available the Enquiry voting report and the compiled comments, together with the assessments of the New Approach Consultant(s), if any, to the TC members.
1.13 Each comment resulting from the CENELEC Enquiry, irrespective of whether a positive vote on the draft has been given by the individual countries, is analysed and evaluated, and a decision is taken on each comment.
This may be carried out during a 'comments resolution meeting' of the Technical body that can decide to delegate the resolution of comments to the level of a Working Group (WG).
1.14 The Technical Body Secretary is responsible for the preparation of a so-called 'table of decisions', collecting the formal written proposals of the meeting (by completing the CENELEC Commenting Form, column ‘Observations of the Secretariat’) and circulating these documents, together with the revised draft, to the Technical Body for final decision on how to proceed (see 1.15 and 1.17).
1.15 When the Enquiry results meet the necessary approval criteria and no technical changes were accepted, the Technical Body decides by simple majority to skip the Formal Vote and proceed to publication - go to process 'Finalization and implementation of European Standards'- (maximum 4 weeks consultation period), taking into account the following:
- The Enquiry voting results and comments
- Knowledge of the committee and subject area
- The Global Relevance policy
NOTE: A Globally Relevant standard should:
- Effectively respond to regulatory and market needs (in the global marketplace)
- Respond to scientific and technical developments in various countries
- Not distort the market
- Have no adverse effects on fair competition
- Not stifle innovation and technological development
- Not give preference to characteristics or requirements of specific countries or regions when different needs or interests exist in other countries or regions
- Be performance based as opposed to design prescriptive
In case a New Approach Consultant provided a negative assessment, the Formal Vote shall not be skipped, unless the negatives assessment is resolved during the resolution of comments (see 1.13).
1.16 Where the decision by the Technical Body to skip the Formal Vote is positive, the Technical Body informs CCMC. The transmission notice shall be filled in stating that the next procedure is publication, as well as indicating the reference of the TB decision. No text is to be delivered to CCMC for the publication. CCMC finalizes the publication using the enquiry draft as approved by CENELEC members taking into account editorial comments stemming from the Enquiry. No technical changes are permitted to this draft for publication..
1.17 If the Formal Vote is not skipped, the following options are possible:
- to launch a second Enquiry on the modified version of the prEN (go back to 1.1). The Technical Body takes a decision by simple majority;
- to submit the revised draft as FprEN to Formal Vote (go to process 'Formal Vote') in which case the edited Enquiry draft shall be the base document for the Formal Vote draft. The Technical Body decides to submit the revised draft to the Formal Vote;
- to prepare a CLC/TS (go to process 'Technical Specifications'). The Technical Body takes a decision by simple majority;
- to prepare a CLC/TR (go to process 'Technical Reports'). The Technical Body takes a decision by simple majority;
- to stop the work and release the standstill, if appropriate. The Technical Body takes a decision by simple majority.
1.18 In order to avoid deficient standards being published, in exceptional cases and with a justified request, BT can approve the integration of technical changes in the text after vote and before publication (BT decision D149/017) . In practice, the Permanent Delegate sends a letter, detailing the justification for this exceptional request (risk for deficient standard), with in Annex, the proposed visible revision to the voted text.