This page specifies the actions required for the editing of a final draft European Standard (FprEN), the launch of the Formal Vote thereon and the communication of the results of the latter.
1.1 The Technical Body (TB) decides to send the FprEN to the Formal Vote.
1.2 The WG Convenor together with the Editing Committee (if any) finalizes the FprEN in accordance with the Internal Regulations-Part3.
1.3 Once the Technical Body has approved the finalized FprEN received from the WG Convenor (prepared in accordance with CEN/CENELEC Internal Regulations – Part 3), 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 electronic 'Transmission Notice'.
1.4 CCMC carries out the relevant administrative tasks and edits the FprEN as received from the Technical Body in line with the Internal Regulations-Part 3.
1.5 Once the editing is finalized, CCMC dispatches the FprEN to the CENELEC National Committees, the Partner Organizations, the Affiliates, the EC and EFTA Secretariat, the TB Chair and Secretary. This is done on a weekly basis through an electronic platform.
NOTE: The default is a launch to Formal Vote directly after the CCMC editing. However, if during Enquiry AFNOR, BSI or DKE have requested a translation period before Formal Vote, then CCMC sends the electronic documents after editing, via E-Trans, to the relevant National Committees (NC) for translation. The relevant NCs prepare the translations and return them via E-Trans to CCMC within the specified timescales (normally 6 weeks). The Formal Vote is launched afterwards.
1.6 If appropriate, CCMC dispatches the FprEN to the HAS Consultant(s) at the start of the Formal Vote for assessment within 28 days. The HAS Consultant provides the results of the assessment to CCMC. For more information, including the potential outcomes of the HAS Consultant assessment, please see the process 'European Standards for citation in the Official Journal'.
1.7 The CENELEC National Committees submit their vote and their comments, prepared using the Commenting Form, on the CENELEC voting system within the prescribed 8-week period. The CENELEC Members are required to cast unconditional votes and to justify any negative vote.
In case of positive vote or abstention the justification is optional.
No extensions to the voting period are allowed.
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'.
1.8 During Formal Vote, 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 Secretariat (email@example.com) for handling following the agreed mechanism.
1.9 The electronic voting system automatically closes the vote once the deadline is reached. After the deadline of the Formal Vote, CCMC establishes the voting report, compiles the comments 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 TB Chair and Secretary. The document is finalized by CCMC for publication and sent to the Technical Body Secretary for a 3-week publication proofing.
NOTE: A CENELEC Member, or Partner Organization, may appeal within two months after receipt of the voting report (see the Appeal Mechanism in the Internal Regulations-Part 2).
If the result of the vote is positive, see process ‘Finalization and implementation of European Standards’
However, if the vote is negative, the Technical Body may recommend what further action is to be taken. The Technical Board takes the final decision.
1.10 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.