Following is a process for expediting adoption of urgent changes in harmonized standards, particularly those changes driven by changes in technologies.

  1. Introduction
    1. A CANENA revision cycle for Binational or Trinational Standards may be accelerated in order to remove barriers in current harmonized standards that prohibit the introduction in the market place of new technology or new products. If there are no barriers in the harmonized standard, the incorporation of new technology and/or new products in the harmonized standards shall be accomplished during normal revision cycle; the use of accelerated cycle shall not be allowed in such instances.
    2. Under this procedure, an SDO has the option of proceeding with a change to the standard if the other SDOs or the THC/THSC were not able to commit to an accelerated revision cycle.
    3. The SDO wishing to use this procedure must have the relevant standard(s) in their scope.
      1. UL and CSA utilize internal CRD/TIL processes respectively to handle new products. The intent of these CRD/TIL documents, become input to the THC/THSC for consideration during the normal revision cycle.
    4. General guidance for establishing a normal revision cycle for a co-published standard can be found in the “Revision Cycles for Binational and Trinational Standards”.
  2. Definitions
    “New Technology” –For the purpose of a co-published standard, new technology is considered to exist when a product has similarities to other products covered by a standard but which includes:

    • application
    • function
    • feature
    • rating
    • size
    • mechanical feature, or
    • construction
  3. Responsibilities
    1. The SDO proposing an accelerated revision cycle is responsible for providing rationale as to why the proposal for processing urgent changes in harmonized standards should be dealt with outside the normal revision cycle.
    2. The participating SDO and THC shall acknowledge the proposal of an accelerated revision cycle and indicate whether it supports the effort.
  4. References
    The following documents apply:

    • Annex A Processing Urgent Changes in Harmonized Standards Procedure Request Form
    • Annex B Schedule for Processing Urgent Changes in Harmonized Standards
  5. Procedure for an Accelerated Revision Cycle
    1. SDO(s) Review of Proposal
      1. The proponent for an accelerated revision cycle due to new technology driven changes where time is critical shall send a letter to the CANENA Secretary providing the rationale as to why the proposal should be dealt with outside the normal revision cycle (Annex A). The letter shall include a proposed schedule for processing urgent changes in harmonized standards (Annex B). A copy of the letter and schedule shall also be sent to the affected SDOs and THC.
      2. The following conditions shall be satisfied before an accelerated revision cycle with the THC is initiated.
        • There is a conflict with the standard relative to new technology, and
        • time to publish the standard is critical, and
        • the proposed standard revision should be acceptable in scope and has a reasonable probability of becoming a harmonized requirement, either within the accelerated revision cycle, or if necessary, during the next normal revision cycle.
      3. The other SDOs and THC must provide comments to the originating SDO within four weeks of receiving a proposal for processing urgent changes in harmonized standards. The proposal may be modified, as necessary, to reflect country requirements.
    2. Lack of Agreement on Initiating an Accelerated Revision Cycle
      1. If the SDO’s and THC can not reach agreement on the schedule for revising a harmonized standard to accommodate new technologies, the CANENA General Secretary will pull together an ad hoc committee, consisting of a representative from all SDOs, the CANENA General Secretary (oversight committee chair), a CANENA Officer, and additional technical representatives as required from each country. The ad hoc committee shall determine the schedule. The determination shall take into consideration the following:
        • Validity of the rationale presented in the proposal
        • Input from all SDO’s regarding applicability in their countries
        • Input from the THC’s regarding willingness to actively participate
        • Availability of SDO and other resources to do the work
        • Impact on other standardization projects
        • Other.
    3. Preliminary Technical Review
      1. To identify any concerns before the draft is balloted, each participating SDO shall conduct a preliminary technical review of the draft by the applicable SDO committees/constituents.
      2. The participating SDOs should collect the comments from their respective committees and constituents. Comments provided to an SDO may be considered confidential and an SDO may choose not to send a copy of the comments directly to the THC. Instead, a summary of the comments may be provided to the THC. Alternatively, comments may be sent directly from the commenters to the THC.
      3. The THC shall revise the draft, as appropriate, based on the comments received. The THC shall also provide a report within two weeks to the SDOs explaining how comments were resolved and identifying any changes made due to comments.
    4. Ballot
      1. Upon receipt of the revised draft, each SDO involved shall follow its own review process and circulate the draft to its committees/constituents for ballot.
      2. Each SDO has the option of responding directly to straightforward comments instead of forwarding them to the THC. If the SDOs respond directly to the comments, the SDOs shall agree on the responses and a copy or summary of the responses shall be sent to the THC Secretariat. Other comments (those that are not straightforward) may be summarized before being forwarded to the THC. When sending comments, consideration should be given to also providing a recommended resolution to expedite the process. In either case, the SDOs should forward the material to the THC Secretariat in a timely fashion.
      3. The THC shall discuss the comments received from the SDOs during the balloting or public review process and shall determine what changes are to be made to the draft, if any. It is important to note that the comments shall be addressed and resolved in accordance with each SDO’s standards development procedures.
    5. Recirculation (if necessary)
      1. The SDOs shall reach agreement on the document. Alternatively, if the draft was revised significantly, another review by the SDO constituents may be necessary. The SDOs shall determine if another review is necessary in accordance with their procedures. If another review is necessary, see 5.3 to 5.4. It is possible that one SDO will require another review while the other SDOs will not.
    6. Publication Preparation
      1. Once the review and ballotting of the draft standard is completed, the Publication Coordinator shall send an electronic copy to the other SDOs.
      2. The proposed revision shall be verbatim in all country standards.
      3. On receipt of the document from the Publication Coordinator, each SDO shall follow its final review and approval process
    7. Publication Date
      1. Each SDO shall publish the standard as close to the conclusion of the publication preparation date as possible.
    8. Interim Change
      1. Where only one country needs an interim change in a standard, the current “exception” process called out in Section 6.3.7 of the Procedures for Harmonizing ANCE/CSA/UL Standards, shall be followed.
      2. When an SDO makes a unilateral change to a binational or trinational standard it shall be made as a single country deviation and shall be published concurrently by all SDOs verbatim.
Approved 2010-Nov-16

Annex B

Schedule for Processing Urgent Changes in Harmonized Standards

Phase

UL Process

CSA Process

ANCE Process

Begin/End Date

SDO(s) Review of Proposal – Originating SDO provides the
proposal, an explanation of the urgent nature, and a proposed schedule to the
other SDOs and the THC for review. 

 

The other SDOs and the THC provide comments to the
originating SDO.  The proposal is
modified, as necessary, to reflect country requirements.

 

30 days

Jan 1- Feb 1

Preliminary Technical
Review

Conducted by UL STP, Subscribers UL standards service, and
other interested parties.

 

 

 

30 days

Conducted by CSA’s Technical Sub-Committee (TC) for review.

 

Public review to be conducted concurrently.

 

30 days

SC Review & translation

 

Editorial and quality review to be conducted after
translation.

 

 

 

45 days

Feb 1 – Mar 15

Consideration of comments received from preliminary technical
review.

(Conducted by THC)

 

If the THC makes additional technical changes the draft will
require further review by the CSA Technical Sub-Committee.  This may take additional time.

 

2 weeks

Mar 15 – Apr 1

Ballot

Conducted by STP, Subscribers, and public review.

 

 

 

 

45 days

Conducted by CSA’s Technical Committee (TC).

 

Preapproval edit and ballot.

 

30 days

SC approval

TC approval

CONANCE approval

Public review

 

 

 

 

75 days

Apr 1 – Jun 15

UL, CSA, ANCE, and the THC to review and resolve comments
submitted during the ballot period.

 

30 days

Jun 15 – Jul 15

Recirculation (if necessary)

Conducted by STP/subscribers

 

(30 days if small changes) or
14 days if circulating responses (no proposed changes)

 

45 days

Conducted by TSC and TC.

 

TSC review + TC re-ballot

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 days

Public review if needed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60 days

Jul 15 – Sep 15

Publication Preparation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 days

Second Level Review and Production Edit

 

 

 

 

 

 

45 days

To review and resolve comments submitted during the
recirculation to public review.

To prepare publication.

 

45 days

Sep 15 – Nov 1

Publication Date

 

Nov. 15