5. Reviewing Files

5.1 Preliminary Review of Applications

Upon receiving the application, the CARTV shall determine whether the documentation submitted is sufficiently complete to allow them to move on to analysis. If this documentation is deemed inadequate, the CARTV shall inform the applicant to this effect, detailing the missing elements.

Upon completion of the preliminary review, the CARTV publishes the applicant's name. A notice requesting public comments may be required at the request of an administrative authority with which the Board has an agreement, or at the request of the Board.

5.2 Publishing Applicant's Name

Upon completion of the preliminary review, the CARTV publishes the applicant's name. A notice requesting public comments may be required if the Board has so resolved.

5.3 Review of Documentation

5.3.1 Standards Committee Function

The documentation forwarded by the applicant shall be submitted to the concerned section of the Standards Committee for analysis, with the exception of documents pertaining to specifications and inspection plans. The Committee's function is to evaluate the certifier's ability to carry out a certification program, based specifically on the validity and the relevance of the documents and information obtained from these bodies, and along with any other information deemed to be useful, as specified in Section 2 of the Regulations Pertaining to Reserved Designations. Where applicable, the committee shall establish any points of non-conformity. It then shall ask the body to implement or to finish implementing any element required to ensure it can adequately carry out its certification program. Based on the body's response, if any, the committee shall draft a notice for the Board within a reasonable time frame. The report may indicate that:

The certifier is able to properly carry out a certification program and is eligible for accreditation, or;
The certifier does not possess the general elements necessary to properly carry out the certification program for which it has requested accreditation, and therefore it is not eligible for accreditation.

5.3.2 Accreditation Committee Function

All documentation concerning the monitoring program is submitted for review to the Accreditation Committee. In order to evaluate them, the Committee uses the accreditation criteria of the CARTV or any other administrative authority with which the Board has an agreement. Where applicable, the Committee shall establish points of non-compliance, and then shall ask the body to rectify them. The Committee may require that any requests for corrective action involving non-compliant documents be met before the evaluation visit regarding the surveillance control plans. Once the documentation review and the on-site visit have taken place, the Committee shall establish, where applicable, any points of non-compliance and shall inform the body via official notification including a request to implement or finish implementing any measures intended to correct the instances of non-compliance.

Once the body has responded, the Committee shall draft its recommendations for the Board or any other administrative authority with which the Board has an agreement within a reasonable time frame. It may recommend:

Accreditation, with the committee having judged that the applicant is capable of carrying out a certification program that complies with the accreditation criteria (Section 3), while also certifying products in accordance with the specifications approved by the CARTV;
Accreditation, combined with requirements that amendments be made to the certification program within a given time frame. The set time frame will consider the level of non-compliance and the ability to make amendments within this time. The established conditions must be met within 12 months;
Refusing accreditation when:
- One or several major instances of non-compliance remain, very evidently revealing that the body is unable to monitor the organic integrity of the products being certified;
- There remain a large number of minor instances of non-compliance, resulting in a cumulative non-compliance threshold that might compromise the integrity of product certification.

5.3.3 Should the Accreditation Committee not be able to make a recommendation, the Board itself establishes the applicant's accreditation status or, if appropriate, makes a recommendation to the administrative authority concerned by the accreditation application.