Update the “Procedures for Accredited Standards Committee C63®, ElectroMagnetic Compatibility (EMC), Revision 10 January 2013.” Input Received 01-MAY-2014

Requested Revisions Consensus Body is used often and with different meaning throughout the procedures. Examples: – 3.1 should be Main Committee – 3.2 should be Main Committee – 6.1 should be main committee – 8.9 Balloting group is the Consensus Body Need to define the group being referred to, Main Committee, Subcommittee, Working Group, etc.

Requested Revisions – Working Groups – their timetable shall be strictly defined and followed, when a standard is published that is developed by the WG, the WG is automatically disbanded – First paragraph needs to be rewritten. “Chair” needs to be defined “chair of the main committee” for example Need to add a paragraph allowing the Main Committee to create “task forces” or “ad hoc committees”. It seems to be missing in the present procedures.

Requested Revisions The Main Committee is defined in the procedures. Define a specific criteria for gaining and maintaining membership at each level in the C63 structure. – Subcommittees – Working Groups – Task Forces

Requested Revisions Delegate more authority to the Subcommittees – Approve its’ membership – Determine when a document is ready for ballot Define remote participation for the Main Committee and Subcommittees. Clause 11

Requested Revisions Section 5.4 of the Operating Procedures: "Interest categories shall be discretely defined, cover all materially affected parties and differentiate each category from the other categories. Such definitions shall be available upon request." The current list of interest categories and definitions is not included in the Operating Procedures; I am not sure where this documentation is. I believe it should be included in the next revision of the Operating Procedures. Any changes to the interest categories would then require approval by ANSI (after approval by the Main Committee) as the Operating Procedures would need to be revised accordingly.

Requested Revisions I submitted this question to ANSI and received the following response from Anne Caldas: Any standard that is not a currently approved American National Standard (ANS) is a “new” standard in ANSI’s context – even if years ago it was approved as an ANS and that approval lapsed. If a document is a currently approved ANS and it is being substantively changed per ANSI’s definition (see Annex A of ww.ansi.org/essentialrequirements), then it is referred to as a “revision” of an ANS.

Requested Revisions If “revisions” are only used, should we also get clarification of what an “amendment” is? Note that there is a strong interest in making “small or limited” changes and to call that an amendment—and if that is successful to require the user to purchase it. The next edition would incorporate that amendment when the next edition is published.. So the line between “revision” and “amendment” is blurred at best and again it depends on who is making that decision. Historically we called each published standard as the next edition and not a revision even if it was based on the previous edition. That was to be clear that they were standalone documents and to fully sunset the previous edition. Of course those that reference our standards can select which edition to use whether it is the latest one or a previous one. There is no reference to a clause in one edition and another in a previous edition. Instead the entire edition is referred to.

Requested Revisions There is a strong interest in being able to create amendments that make additions, deletions, or changes to relative small parts of an ANSI standard. This practice is commonplace with many ANSI accredited SDOs. We certainly do it in the TIA work with which I am most familiar, and I think we are all aware of the amendments to the IEEE 802 series of documents (e.g. IEEE a, 11b, 11g, 11n, etc.). The issuance of an Amendment does “revise” the base document in the sense that the approved standard consists of the base document plus all of its amendments. The next time a major revision is done to the base document to create a new “edition”, all of the amendments get “rolled up” into the new base document.

Volunteers Mr. Heirman Mr. Hoolihan Mr. Griffin Mr. Hare Mr. Hodes Mr. Hirvela Mr. Sigouin Mr. Gouker Ms. Hackett Mr. Whitesell

Proposal Update the procedures to include the suggestions provided. Work to get a consensus from the task force such that we can propose changes to the Main Committee during the November meeting.