Disclaimer: RP 572 5th Ed, Inspection Practices for Pressure Vessels Main Body / Appendix C REDLINE ONLY
Download Ballot File
Taken from: API Procedures for Standard Development, 7th Edition, April 2022, approved by ANSI April 2022 (“Procedures”)
6.6 Balloting
6.6.1 General
Balloting shall be conducted using API’s electronic balloting (e-ballot) system except for recirculation (see 6.6.7.3 [of the Procedures]), which may be conducted via e-mail in lieu of the e-ballot system. Voters and commenters shall respond using the e-ballot system to facilitate the preparation of ballot summaries and comment registries suitable for recording and reporting the disposition of all comments.
6.6.2 Voting During Meetings
The right to vote in any meeting is exclusively that of the respective officers and members of the committee holding the meeting. In the absence of a member, a duly appointed alternate or designated representative may exercise the member's right to vote. Standards actions shall not become final until ratified by a ballot of the committee or consensus body.
6.6.3 Ballots
Standards actions, including approval of a new standard, the revision or reaffirmation of an existing standard or the national adoption of an ISO standard, shall be approved by ballot of a standards committee or consensus body.
No draft standard or standards revision shall be sent to any external standards organization for their adoption or potential use unless the standard has been balloted and approved in accordance with these Procedures, or a formal agreement between API and another standards organization has already been established for joint development/revision of standards.
A reasonable period of time should be set for balloting (generally six weeks). Such a period shall be established by the standards committee chair in consultation with API staff. Ballots shall be prepared and distributed by API staff to members of the standards committee or consensus body who are eligible to vote and their alternates (if any). Information on accessing copies of ballot drafts and submitting comments shall be distributed to those who have expressed an interest in participating in the ballot.
6.6.4 Ballot Format
A ballot shall concisely state the proposed action being balloted. All ballots shall provide for four voting options:
a) affirmative;
b) affirmative with comment;
c) negative with reasons;
d) abstain.
Negative votes shall be accompanied by comments related to the proposal; votes unaccompanied by such comments will be recorded as “negative without comments” without further notice to the voter.
6.6.5 Individual Ballot Qualification
6.6.5.1 Voting Requirements
Only one ballot is allowed for each company voting member or the voting member's alternate. If ballots are received from the member who is eligible to vote and the alternate of the same company, the member’s vote shall prevail. If ballots are received from alternates representing the same company, the earliest ballot received by API shall prevail. Each valid ballot received by API shall identify the member who is eligible to vote or the alternate to the member casting the ballot, show the company affiliation, be dated, and be returned by the ballot closing date. Comments shall be easily understood, concise, and clearly indicate the part of the document to which it pertains; alternative wording to resolve the comment should be provided.
6.6.5.2 Joint API Committee Ballots
In cases where joint balloting of multiple API committees is determined to be appropriate because of the need to solicit input from multiple disciplines, special arrangements shall be made to ensure conformance with these Procedures. These arrangements include noting such joint ballot requirements in the SR3 form (see 6.4.1 [of the Procedures]), approval of the joint ballot by the parent committee, and coordination between voting members of the joint committees representing the same company and may include designation of segment interest categories such as Upstream Operator-User, Downstream Operator-User, or Pipeline Operator-User.
6.6.6 Ballot Approval
For a proposed standards action ballot to be considered approved, all comments shall be considered in accordance with 6.6.7 [of the Procedures], and the following conditions for consensus shall be satisfied (see 6.2.3 [of the Procedures]): a) a majority of the members who are eligible to vote shall have voted; and b) at least two-thirds of the combined valid affirmative and valid negative votes (excluding abstentions) shall be affirmative.
6.6.7 Comments and Objections
6.6.7.1 Disposition and Documentation of Comments
Comments submitted by a member of the consensus body or resulting from the public review, shall be considered and attempts shall be made to resolve them in accordance with this subsection before a ballot is considered approved by the committee. ANSI public review comments shall be submitted using API’s e-ballot system, which requires commenters to provide their name, e-mail address etc. Public comments shall not be accepted if provided through other means.
The chair of the appropriate committee, in conjunction with API staff and committee members or a designated subgroup, when appropriate, is responsible for the consideration of ballot comments pertaining to technical, safety, or environmental assertions and assertions of ambiguity, inaccuracy, or omission.
API staff is responsible for the consideration of ballot comments pertaining to API policies and procedures, including format, style, graphics, use of copyrighted material and patent-related issues.
Documentation of all comment resolution decisions including consideration given to all negative ballots shall be recorded on the comment registry provided by API and re-submitted to API on completion prior to proceeding to publication. The following general format should be used to document comment resolution:
a) Accepted: Indicates that the text will be changed as proposed in the accepted comment.
b) Accepted in principle: Indicates that the text will be changed to reflect the principle of the accepted comment (i.e. the change will be made but not exactly as suggested by the commenter). In addition, some explanation of why and how the text will be modified to incorporate the comment shall be provided.
c) Noted: Indicates that the comment has been considered, but that no change will be made at this time. In many cases “noted” comments have been considered during the preparation of the text but did not merit inclusion. In other instances, “noted” comments may be considered at the next revision. Some brief explanation of the reason for “noting” a comment shall be provided.
d) Not accepted: Indicates that no change will be made to the text. An explanation of the reason for not accepting the comment shall be given.
Commenters shall be advised of the disposition of comments and objections with reasons therefore in writing, which may be achieved by directing them to a website for this information.
Comments received after the closing of the ballot, and in the case of ANSI/API standards the closing of the public review, may be considered by the appropriate committee or can be considered in the same manner as a new proposal.
6.6.7.2 Disposition and Documentation of Objections
API shall consider all objections in the form of negative votes which are accompanied by comments that are related to the proposal under consideration. This includes negative votes accompanied by comments of a procedural or philosophical nature. These types of comments shall not be dismissed because they do not necessarily provide alternative language or a specific remedy to the negative vote.
API shall not consider negative votes without comments and negative votes accompanied by comments not related to the proposal under consideration. If comments not related to the proposal are submitted with a negative vote, the comments shall be documented and considered in the same manner as submittal of a new proposal.
6.6.7.3 Final Disposition of Comments and Objections, and Recirculation Requirements
Each unresolved objection and attempt at resolution, and any substantive change made in a proposed API standard shall be reported to the consensus body in order to afford all members of the consensus body an opportunity to respond, reaffirm, or change their vote in accordance with the following criteria:
a) Comments with affirmative ballots determined to be persuasive and editorial; the proposed editorial changes are incorporated into the document.
b) Comments with affirmative ballots determined to be persuasive and substantive; the proposed changes are recirculated in accordance with this section to the appropriate committee or consensus body offering them an opportunity to respond, revise or reaffirm their vote prior to incorporation into the document.
c) Comments with affirmative ballots determined to be non-persuasive are not considered further.
d) Comments with negative ballots determined to be persuasive and substantive; the proposed changes are recirculated in accordance with this section to the appropriate committee or consensus body offering them an opportunity to respond, revise or reaffirm their vote prior to incorporation into the document.
e) Comments with negative ballots determined to be not-persuasive are not considered further. The final disposition of these comments shall be communicated in writing to the voter and shall include notification of the right to appeal. The non-persuasive objection shall also be recirculated to the consensus body in accordance with this section to the appropriate committee or consensus body offering them an opportunity to respond, revise or reaffirm their vote.
f) Comments with negative ballots that are determined to be unrelated to the item being balloted, or negative ballots submitted without comments, shall not be considered further and shall be recorded as “negatives without comments” for purposes of reporting to ANSI with no further notice to the submitter.
g) Comments with negative ballots may be withdrawn by the voter after consultation with the chair or the designated subgroup. The vote may be changed in writing by the voter to either an abstention or an affirmative. A withdrawn negative vote is counted as affirmative unless specified by the voter as an abstention.
6.6.7.4 Optional Reballot
6.6.7.4.1 Overview
In some cases it may be desirable to reballot an entire document or reballot a portion of a document in lieu of recirculation. The decision to use the reballot option shall be made by the committee chair in consultation with API staff.
6.6.7.4.2 Reballoting an Entire Standard
When the decision is made to reballot an entire document, the ballot should clearly explain the reason for the reballot. When an entire document is reballoted, the ballot should clearly indicate it is intended to restart the ballot process rather than serve as a recirculation, such that votes on prior ballots do not count. The results of such reballots of the entire standard shall supersede the previous ballot and shall be the results which are reported to the committee and included with the BSR-9 submission if the document is submitted for ANSI approval.
6.6.7.4.3 Reballoting a Portion of a Standard
When the decision is made to reballot a portion of the document in lieu of recirculation, the ballot should clearly explain and/or the ballot document should clearly indicate which portions of the proposed standard are being reballoted. It should be made clear that no other portion of the document is under consideration during the reballot and that the previous ballot results not pertaining to the reballoted portion remain final.
Comments and objections submitted on the reballoted portion of the document shall be considered in accordance with 6.6.7.1 and 6.6.7.2 [of the Procedures], which may require recirculation (6.6.7.3 [of the Procedures]).
The final results of the reballot of portions of a standard, along with the results of previous associated final ballot results, i.e. final votes on other previously approved portions of the document, shall be included with the BSR-9 submission if the document is submitted for ANSI approval. Therefore, the results of multiple ballots may be required to be presented as part of the BSR-9 submission to demonstrate how consensus was achieved on different sections of a standard.
6.6.8 Joint Balloting of Multiple Committees
In situations where joint balloting of multiple consensus bodies (such as subcommittees) under a specific standards policy committee is determined to be appropriate because of the need to solicit input from multiple disciplines, the following procedures shall be followed.
NOTE The term “subcommittees” can also include other designated consensus bodies such as a task group.
a) A lead subcommittee and the associate subcommittee(s) whose input is also being sought, shall be identified on the SR3 form at the initiation of the project. Any dispute as to determining the lead subcommittee shall be referred to governing standards policy committee for adjudication where a decision shall be made by majority vote.
b) The proposal (SR3) to develop a new standard or revised standard using joint committee balloting shall initially be considered within the lead subcommittee. If approved within the lead subcommittee, the proposal shall be subsequently considered within the associate subcommittee(s). The SR3 shall be approved by the policy committee in accordance with 6.4 [of the Procedures].
c) When the final draft of the standard is ready, a ballot shall be initiated and distributed to all members of the lead and associate subcommittee(s). Voting on the joint ballot shall be as follows.
1) All voting members of the lead subcommittee shall have a vote.
2) Where a voting member’s company on an associate subcommittee is NOT represented on the lead subcommittee, that member shall have a vote on the joint ballot.
3) Where a voting member’s company on an associate subcommittee already has a voting representative on the lead subcommittee, the associate subcommittee member shall NOT vote on the joint ballot. In this case, the viewpoint of the associate subcommittee representative shall be directed through their voting representative of the lead subcommittee.
Members who have representatives on the lead subcommittee and associate subcommittee(s) should coordinate the submission of comments via their lead subcommittee representative.
d) Once the joint subcommittee ballot has closed, the chair of the lead subcommittee, in consultation with the chair(s) of the associate subcommittee(s), shall ensure that the disposition of ballot comments and any negative votes have been addressed satisfactorily in accordance with 6.6.6 and 6.6.7 [of the Procedures]. Disputes between the chair of the lead subcommittee and the chair(s) of the associate subcommittee(s) as to the disposition of ballot comments and negative votes shall be referred to the standards policy committee for adjudication where a decision shall be made by majority vote.
6.6.9 Legal Review
Standards shall not be considered final until the API Office of the Chief Legal Officer has reviewed and approved the document.
6.9 Appeals
6.9.1 General
Appeals shall be granted and conducted in accordance with these Procedures. These appeals shall address procedural matters only, which can include whether a technical issue was afforded due process.
Directly and materially interested parties who believe they are or will be adversely affected by a standards action are eligible to file an appeal. Administrative procedures for conflict resolution in the standards development process, including consideration of negative ballots, shall be exhausted before lodging any appeal. Appeals shall be considered by the committee or committees responsible for the issue. The decision of the appeal authority is final; however, the API Global Industry Services Committee may, at its discretion, review the decision to ensure conformance with API policies.
6.9.2 Submission
Appeals shall be submitted in writing to the API Standards Director or their designee with a $500.00 filing fee. This fee may be waived or reduced upon presentation of evidence of the appellant showing hardship. The appeal shall include a statement identifying specifically the action or inaction objected to; the basis for the objection, including any adverse impacts on the complainant; and suggested remedial action. The appeal shall be filed with API within 30 days of the date of notification of the action causing the complaint or at any time with regard to inactions.
NOTE A 30 day wait period does not need to pass following the recirculation of an unresolved objection to a ballot (6.6.7.3 [of the Procedures]) if the objector notifies API in writing that they do not intend to submit an appeal.
Further, challenges to published standards shall be initiated within 1 year of their distribution unless it can be demonstrated that the objection is based on grounds that have subsequently arisen. The API Standards Director or their designee shall investigate the objections raised, respond promptly and attempt to resolve the issue within 45 calendar days of receipt.
6.9.3 Hearing
If the Director or their designee cannot resolve the objections, a hearing by the appropriate committee or its designated appeals board may be convened. The Director or their designee shall advise the appellant in writing that their objections are not considered resolved, and if sufficient evidence has been provided by the appellant of API Procedures for Standards Development violations, they shall be given the opportunity to appear before the appeals board and present arguments in support of his or her objection. A hearing should generally follow the format described in the ANSI Appeals Board Operating Procedures with API staff and their designated committee representatives appearing as the Respondent. The hearing should be held within 45 calendar days from the date the appellant was advised that their objections were not considered resolved. If the appellant does not request a hearing within 15 business days of the Director’s or their designee’s response, the appeal shall be considered closed.
The appeals board shall determine whether applicable API policies and procedures were satisfied and whether the procedural and substantive actions or requirements complained of merit corrective action. Competing suppliers or manufacturers of the process or service that is the subject of the appeal shall not participate in the appeals process. An appeals board shall generally consist of three individuals selected by the Director or their designee in consultation with the committee chair, API Executive Staff member, and the API Office of the Chief Legal Officer. Board members shall not have been directly involved in the disputed matter. The appeals board may call upon experts familiar with the issues of the dispute. The appellant is notified of the appeals board’s composition and given the opportunity to object to members on the appeals board. Objections shall be substantiated to be considered.
6.9.4 Decision
The appeals board shall issue a written decision following the hearing within 45 calendar days. The decision shall indicate the conclusions reached, and their basis. The Standards Director or their designee shall ensure that a complete record of the appeal is compiled and maintained in conformance with API’s record retention policy (see 7.1 [of the Procedures]). The appellant shall receive a written copy of the final decision.
Specified time limits in this policy may be modified by the API Standards Director or their designee responsible for the appealed standard or their designee upon demonstration of reasonable cause.