API-ISO Standards Submittal Review Process
The API-ISO Standards Submittal Review Process is designed to determine at the very earliest stages the level of support and interest an API committee may have in participating and supporting the submission of an API standard as the base document for an ISO standard. The process is used to determine the level of interest whether the request is from an API committee or from an outside source. Please see the attached form and flowchart for details.
Section 1 – To be completed by the API Standards Associate:
In section 1, a series of questions are asked concerning the interest in and ability of an API committee to participate in the ISO process. First and foremost is the question as to whether or not this activity will result in a US national adoption of the resulting ISO standard. This is the first “gate,” as it indicates a commitment to avoid duplicative work and an intent to withdraw the API standard when the ISO standard is completed. An affirmative will result in API licensing its intellectual property to ISO and its member bodies for use as the basis for an ISO standard. If yes, then the names of the technical expert(s) also are to be listed.
The second question raised is if there are any conditions to this standard’s submittal; for example, if the document is only to be submitted on the basis of “fast-track” approval. Please note that while the API committee may choose to establish such a condition, the ISO directives do not guarantee that such a condition may be accepted.
The third question raised is if the standard is eligible for submittal under the API-ISO Pilot Project. To be eligible, the standard must be under the direct purview of ISO/TC 67 (not part of a joint work group), must not already be on the work program of TC 67 nor be a “frozen” work item, and not subject to the Vienna Agreement unless the TC has assurances that CEN can confirm that the document can be adopted as a European norm.
Section 2 – To be completed by the API Standards Director in conjunction with the Standards Associate and appropriate Self Supporting Director(s):
If the answers to these questions are affirmative, with the first question and the naming of the technical expert(s) being the critical “gate,” then the API Standards Director meets with the other API Self Supporting Directors to discuss any potential impact to API’s Self-Supporting Programs, as well as to discuss possible beneficial impacts to industry. Once a consensus on these issues is reached, a letter is prepared advising ANSI and ISO of the release of the API material for developmental use. If the answer to these questions is “no,” then other considerations may be taken into account; for example, if the API standard requested is obsolete, and no interest has been expressed in updating it, API may allow its submission. Other examples are if the new standard will contain advanced technology beneficial to industry, or if the request is for a negligible portion of the API document.
Section 3 – Final submittal recommendation:
As stated above, a “yes” decision results in an API letter releasing the document. If both the first and second sets of questions are “no,” then the API Publisher prepares a letter advising the requestor that API cannot grant the document’s release.