oiml bulletin october 2002

8/12/2019 Oiml Bulletin October 2002

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oiml-bulletin-october-2002 1/42

Ed ito r ia l

Thoughts for the future

It is always wise to look ahead, but di fficu lt to look fur ther than you can see , Knut Birkeland (CIML Immediate Past-President) used to say, quoting Winston Churchill.

From this point of view, the OIML Seminar ‘What Wi l l

Legal M etr ology Be I n 2020’ organized by the BIML inSeptember 2002 in conjunction with the 37th CIML Meet-ing, may constitute either a far-sighted attempt to help theOIML cope successfully with the rapid (and sometimeserratic) changes in our world, or just an agreeable game of prediction without any real consequences since, after all,many of us will be out of the legal metrology circuit within

eighteen years. The fact that I have accepted with pleasure the respons-ibility of chairing this Seminar shows that I do not consider2020 as being ‘fu rth er th an w e can see ’. Legal metrology is, just as measurement standards are, a rather stable activity:it would be a nonsense to change legal metrology require-ments too frequently, obliging instrument manufacturers topermanently adapt their production to these changingregulations. On the other hand, legal metrology mustconstitute a general framework specifying the essentialmetrological performance of measuring instrumentssubject to legal control, within which manufacturers maydevelop new designs, new measurement methods, and

commercialize - over appropriate periods of time - instru-ments that meet the essential requirements.

As clearly shown by the Seminar program, legalmetrology and the OIML will face a number of develop-ments during the next ten or twenty years, including:

• technological progress with the development of ‘intelligent’ instruments that are able to detect andcompensate for their own inaccuracies;

• worldwide and regional politico-administrative changeswith an increasing globalization of our world and, inparallel, an accelerated development of regional integra-tion;

• financial restrictions on public budgets;

• the need for efficient consumer protection;

• the use of manufacturers’ quality systems; and• participation in the establishment of a global measure-

ment system, while facing the need for ensuring meas-urement reliability in an increasing number of humanactivities.

Because of printing deadlines, I am writing thisEditor ia l some weeks before the Seminar takes place - to be precise,at the beginning of August. Let me, however, try to make arather short-term prediction and repeat my conviction thatthe output of this event, as a continuation of the planningexercises carried out in the past, will constitute anappropriate basis for the adaptation of the OIML and of

legal metrology, at both national and regional levels, to therequirements of our changing world.

Bernard AthanéFormer BIML Director, 1974–2001



1 Introduction

In accordance with the provisions of the European Co-operation for Accreditation, the expanded uncertainty of measurement in calibration should be expressed for acoverage probability of approximately 95 % [1]. I n caseswhere a normal distribution can be attributed to themeasurand and the standard uncertainty associatedwith the output estimate has sufficient reliability, thestandard coverage factor k = 2 shall be used. The assump-tion of normal distribution cannot always be easilyconfirmed. The standard coverage factor k = 2 can yieldan expanded uncertainty corresponding to a coverageprobability different to 95 %. The use of approximatelythe same coverage probability is essential whenever tworesults of measurement of the same quantity have to becompared, e.g. when evaluating the results of an inter-laboratory comparison or assessing compliance with aspecification. In these cases, in order to ensure that thevalue of the expanded uncertainty is quoted correspond-ing to the same coverage probability as in the normalcase, another method has to be employed.

In the reference publication EA-4/02 (supplement 2),two approximation methods for coverage factor

calculation are proposed. One method relies onapproximation of the output quantity distribution by arectangular distribution in cases where a dominantcontribution in the budget is a quantity having arectangular distribution. In this situation the coveragefactor is k =1.65 for a coverage probability of 95 %. Thesecond method relies on approximation of the outputquantity distribution by a trapezoidal distribution incases where dominant contributions in the budget aretwo quantities having rectangular distributions. In thissituation the coverage factors are from k =1.65 to k =1.9for a coverage probability of 95 %. The value of the

coverage factor depends on the ratio of the uncertaintyof the dominant contributions and is given by:

for 1 ≤ r ≤ 10 (1)

where:

p = coverage probability

= ratio of the dominant contributions

u 1(y ) i u 2(y ) = dominant uncertainty contributions

These methods do not solve the problem in thegeneral case where there are several contributions in thebudget with normal and rectangular distributionshaving various standard uncertainties, but non-dominant terms. In this situation the conditions of theCentral Limit Theorem are not met and it cannot beassumed that the distribution of the output quantity isnormal. The output quantity distribution is the convolu-tion of rectangular and normal distributions (R*Ndistribution).

2 Approximation of the convolution of rectangular and normal distributionsby a symmetrical trapezoidal distribution

The coverage factor for a trapezoidal distribution given

by (1) can be presented as a function of ratio r , as inFig.1. It can be illustrated by the curve k T. If r is the ratioof standard deviations of convolved rectangular andnormal distributions, it may show the curve k RN for thedistribution resulting from the R*N convolution on thebasis of the coverage factor value presented in Reference[3]. The difference between values of coverage factors k

for the trapezoidal distribution and for the R*N distribu-tion are small; its variability is presented in Fig. 2. Thecurve in this Figure shows the difference of coveragefactors k T and k RN given by:

(2)

The deviation δ T does not exceed ±1.5 % for acoverage probability of 95 %. This approximation can becompared with the one resulting from the traditionalstandpoint, in other words with the approximation of acoverage factor for R*N distribution by a coveragefactor for normal distribution or for rectangulardistribution. This situation is presented in Fig. 3, whichrepresents the functions of coverage factor deviationsfor R*N distribution approximated by normaldistribution (δN), by rectangular distribution (δR) and by

trapezoidal distribution (δ T). The suitable functions areformulated by:

5O I M L B U L L E T I N V O L U M E X L I I I • N U M B E R 4 • O C T O B E R 2002

technique

UNCERTAINTY

OF MEASUREMENT

Method for calculatingthe coverage factorin calibration

PAWEL FOTOWICZ, General Metrology DivisionCentral Office of Measures, Poland



6 O I M L B U L L E T I N V O L U M E X L I I I • N U M B E R 4 • OC T O B E R 2002

technique

Fig. 1 Coverage factor functions for a coverage probability of 95 %

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1.95

1.9

1.85

1.8

1.75

1.7

1.65

1.6

1.5

1

0.5

0

– 0.5

– 1

[ % ]

k T

δT

k RN

r

r

k

Fig. 2 Function of deviation δT for a coverage probability of 95 %




technique

(3)

(4)

where:

k N = the coverage factor for a normal distribution

k R = the coverage factor for a rectangular distribution

The above consideration implies the conclusion thatthe best accurate approximation of the R*N distributionis a trapezoidal distribution in the range from r =1 tor =10. It should be expected in other ranges of r that thegood approximation of the R*N distribution is a normaldistribution for r <1 and a rectangular distribution for

r >10.

3 Principle of approximation of thedistribution and of the coverage factorfor output quantity in calibration

On the basis of Reference [3] the coverage factor givenby the R*N distribution for a coverage probability of 95% can change in the range from k = 1.65 to k = 2(exactly k =1.96). Those extreme values correspond tothe coverage factor given by the rectangular distributionand by the normal distribution. The other value of thecoverage factor corresponds to the “intermediary”distribution between the rectangular and normaldistributions.

Those “intermediary” distributions are the convolu-tions of rectangular and normal distributions (R*Ndistributions) with a different parameter r (ratio of thestandard deviation of the rectangular distribution to thestandard deviation of the normal distribution). FromFig. 1 it can be noted that the curve k RN is close to thecurve k T in the range of r from 1 to 10. The trapezoidal

distribution is the convolution of two rectangulardistributions. This implies the conclusion that eachconvolution of the rectangular and “intermediary”distributions gives a k function close to the k RN and k Tfunctions. Therefore, using an approximation of theconvolution of the rectangular and “intermediary”distributions by trapezoidal distribution involves theerror of approximation of the coverage factor for thisconvolution not larger than for the cases where thecoverage factor k RN is approximated by the coveragefactor k T. The “intermediary” distribution may be theconvolution of several rectangular and normal

distributions. For instance the coverage factors at thecoverage probability of 95 %:

• given by the convolution of three identical rectangulardistributions is k =1.94 [2],

• given by the convolution of two identical rectangulardistributions is k =1.90, and

• given by the convolution of the normal and rect-angular distributions with equal standard deviationsis k =1.92 [3].

On the basis of this analysis the following principleof approximation of output quantity distribution can beformulated: for the output quantity Y =c 1X 1 + ... + c NX N,where all input quantities X 1, ... , X N are independentand the quantity X

i having a rectangular distribution

with the largest contribution u i(y ) = c iu (x i) satisfies thecondition:

the best approximation of the output quantity distribu-tion is a trapezoidal distribution or a rectangulardistribution, independently from the distributions of other input quantities. In other cases the best approxima-tion of output quantity distribution is a normaldistribution.

The following coverage factor formulae can bededuced:

k =k N for 0 ≤ r < 1

k =k T for 1 ≤ r ≤ 10

k =k R for r > 10

where:

(5)

u i (y ) = the largest contribution of the input quantity

having a rectangular distributionk N = coverage factor for a normal distributionk T = coverage factor for a trapezoidal distributionk R = coverage factor for a rectangular distribution

(6)

(7)

p = coverage probability

4 Summary

The method presented for approximating the coverage

factor of the convolution of rectangular and normaldistributions has been applied. The function of an



8 O I M L B U L L E T I N V O L U M E X L I I I • N U M B E R 4 • OC T O B E R 2002

technique

Fig. 3 Functions of deviationsδN, δT and δR for a coverage probability of 95 %

Fig. 4 Function of the error of the approximation method of the coverage factor in calibration

25

20

15

10

5

0

– 5

– 10

– 15

– 20

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

– 0.5

– 1

[ % ]

[ % ]

δ

δN

δT

δR

δ

r

r

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16




technique

approximation error of the method defined by theformula is presented in Fig. 4:

(8)

The maximum value of the error for the full range of r lies in the range ±2 %. Therefore this value of error isnot larger than the value of error that occurs when theapproximation is made using the normal distributionand consequently coverage factor k =2 at a coverageprobability of 95 %.

The method presented for approximating the outputquantity distribution rendered possible an accurateestimation of the coverage factor for many inputquantities having normal, rectangular and “inter-mediary” distributions. The method presented ensures a

coverage probabili ty of approximately 95 % forexpanded uncertainty evaluation in calibration. Themethod may be applied in procedures for calculating theuncertainty of measurement in calibration.

References

[1] Expression of the Uncertainty of Measurement inCalibration. Publication Reference EA-4/02,

December 1999

[2] Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measure-ment (GUM), BIPM , IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP,OIML, Corrected & Reprinted Edition, 1995

[3] C.F. Dietrich: Uncertainty, Calibration and Prob-ability. The statistics of Scientific and Industrialmeasurement. Second edition. Adam Hilger.Bristol, Philadelphia and New York, 1991



10

seminar 2020

O I M L B U L L E T I N V O L U M E X L I I I • N U M B E R 4 • O C T O B E R 2002

SEMINAR 2020

The face of legal

metrology in South Africaand its possible influencein Africa supporting theNew Program for AfricanDevelopment (NEPAD)

STUART CARSTENS - Director, Legal MetrologyDepartment, SABS (South Africa)

1 Overview and current situation

1.1 South Africa

Weights and Measures was introduced in South Africaby the Dutch during their occupation in the 1600’s.During the British occupation acts were passed in allthe colonies and in 1923 a National Department wasestablished in the Department of Mines and Industry. In1991 the function was transferred to the SABS.

With this transfer, a decision to develop into legalmetrology was made. A position plan was drawn up andsubmitted to Government and two reviews wereundertaken to establish the exact position of legalmetrology and make any recommendations deemednecessary.

In South Africa the legal metrology arena ispresently only regulated in the trade sphere by the

Trade Metrology Act and Regulations. The structure at

present is as below.

1.1.1 Legal / legislativ e process

Figure 1 depicts the legislative framework that is usedin South Africa; this framework is internationallyacceptable. The legislator in South Africa is theDepartment of Trade and Industry.

Legal metrology obtains its mandate through the SAConstitution, Trade Metrology Act and Regulations and

National Measuring Units and Measuring StandardsAct. The Regulator is the South African Bureau of

Standards (SABS), which in turn is appointed by theMinister of Trade and Industry as the nationalresponsible body for legal metrology.

1.1.2 Admi nistrative processes

Type Appr oval

The Type Approval Issuing Authority is the SABS. Typeapproval testing is also conducted by the SABS in itsISO 17025 accredited test laboratory but test resultsfrom competent laboratories are accepted.

Ver i f i ca t ion

The verification function is undertaken by privatecompanies accredited by the National AccreditationBody to SABS 0378 which relates ISO 17025 to legalmetrology. The approval to verify is granted to theselaboratories by the Director of Trade Metrology interms of the Trade Metrology Act after the accreditationcertificates are evaluated to establish conformance tolegal metrology requirements.

In South Africa we have not only allowed privatecompanies to perform initial verification, but have alsoallowed them to do subsequent verification which to

the best of our knowledge is not common practiceinternationally. The SABS also carries out verification, primarily in

areas/types of instruments not serviced by the privatesector to ensure a holistic and comprehensive service isprovided.

Cal ib ra t i on of ver i f i ca t ion s tandards

The calibration of verifi cation standards may be doneby any accredited laboratory (ISO 17025) with anacceptable best measurement capability.

The SABS has five accredited laboratories forcalibration of mass and volume verification standards,situated in Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabethand Bloemfontein and there are presently four privatelaboratories that carry out calibration on verificationstandards of mass and one for volume, besides theNational Metrology Laboratory (NML).

Inspec t ions

Inspection of commodities and measuring instrumentsis done by the SABS and the inspection function

performed by the regional offices is accredited to ISO17020 by the National Accreditation Body.



11

seminar 2020


Main tenance of legis lat ion

The regulator advises the Minister on any changes thatneed to be made to legislation after it has consultedwith all role players. Technical Regulations aredeveloped in the form of National Standards in linewith WTO requirements. Technical Committees are inplace to adopt OIML Recommendations whereverpossible.

Matrix 1 gives various administrative processes andthe institutions responsible for their implementation,and Figure 2 shows the present administrative

processes.

In tern a t iona l and Region a l l ia ison

This function is undertaken by the regulator on behalf of government. South Africa is at present an OIML

Member State and a founder member of SADCMEL.South Africa is presently actively involved withinSADCMEL with the harmonisation of legislation, asrequired by the SADC Trade Protocol, to enhance crossborder trade within the area.

South Africa is also actively involved in theacceptance of OIML Recommendations as SouthAfrican Technical Regulations to bring us into line withinternational requirements.

The co-operation will ensure harmonised technicalregulations and effective implementation to give effectto the NE PAD aims.

Tra in ing

The functional training is presently done in house asthere is no institution that offers a course in legalmetrology due to the small numbers being recruited atpresent. We are currently looking at having coursesregistered with the South African QualificationAuthority. The entrance level for verification officersand inspectors is Grade 12 with maths and science and

for Type Approval Officers, a National Diploma.

SABS Regulator Private verification SABS regional SABS calibration Privatelaboratories offices ISO 17020 laboratories calibrationaccredited to & 17025 ISO 17025 laboratoriesISO 17025 ISO 17025

Type approval ×

Verification × ×

Inspection ×

Calibration ofverification × ×

standards

International/Regional ×

liaison

Training × × ×

Policy

Legislation

Regulator SanctionsTechnicalrequirements

Conformityassessment

Administrative

procedures

Technical regulation

Product /processes

Impactassessment

Fig. 1 The legislative framework used in South Africa

Matrix 1 The various administrative processes



12

seminar 2020


1.1.3 Economi c overv iew

South Africa is regarded as an emerging first worldeconomy and has a developed country infrastructure inthe following areas:

• Telecommunications;

• Electricity (lowest industrial electricity rates in theworld);

• Roads and ports;

• Railroad;

• Air transport.

The seven ports handle in the order of 13 000 vesselsand 500 million tons of cargo per year.

The value of exports and imports with the EU andSADC are as follows:

• Imports from EU R68 122 million;• Exports to EU R66 312 million;

• Exports to SADC R14 418 million.

1.2 Situational overview in Southern Africa

A map of the Southern African Development Com-munity (SADC) is shown opposite, and the currentstatus of the structures in each country are indicated inMatrix 2.

Most SADC countries still have the legal metrologysystem originally entrenched in the colonial era withpredominantly Central Government control and no useof accredited inspection, verification or conformityassessment bodies.

2 Drivers for change

The drivers for change that are indicated below willresult in South Africa progressing from the present

trade metrology infrastructure to a full legal metrologyinfrastructure which will result in us including thingssuch as:

• Medical measuring equipment;

• Utility meters;

• Environmental measuring instruments;

• Speed measuring device;

• Breath alcohol measuring devices.

A decision to regulate the whole spectrum of legalmetrology was made in principle in 1998 and the SQAMreview (Standards, Quality Assurance, Accreditation

and Metrology) reaffirmed this decision. A draft of thenew Legal Metrology Act is to be submitted to govern-ment and it is envisaged that it will be promulgated in2003.

2.1 Standards, Quality Assurance, Accreditationand Metrology (SQAM) Review

The SQAM Review commissioned by the M inister of Trade and Industry was tasked to investigate the status

of the four SQAM disciplines and then to make recom-mendations to the Minister on what interventions need

Southern African Development Community (SADC) Map

Matrix 2 SADC - Overview

DR Congo

Angola

Namibia

Botswana

South Africa

Lesotho

Swaziland

Mauritius

Seychelles

Tanzania

Zambia

Zimbabwe

M o z a m

b i q

u e M

a l

a w i

Present status Countries

Almost no legal metrology legislationor infrastructure

AngolaLesothoMozambique

BotswanaDRC

MalawiNamibiaSeychellesSwazilandTanzaniaZambia

MauritiusSouth Africa

National legislation (not SADCharmonised) and regulatory control

of simple/basic instruments for mass,volume, and length and of goods

National legislation (not SADCharmonised) and regulatory control(inspection and verification) of moresophisticated instruments for mass,volume and length of goods



13

seminar 2020


(ii) A legal metrology framework embodying interna-tional practices for control of measurements beestablished by the proposed Office of RegulatoryReform as part of the general framework of tech-nical regulations.

(ii i) Responsibility for enforcement of trade metrologybe returned to national government, and the func-tion not be devolved to provincial governmentsuntil such time as they have the necessaryresources to address the responsibili ties.

(iv) A Trade Metrology Unit be established within DTIto take responsibility for coordination of thenational system of trade metrology, includingoverall administration of the Trade MetrologySystem.

(v) The proposed Office of Regulatory Reform toadvise on the necessary legislative changes toimplement a re-distribution of trade metrologyfunctions.

(vi) OIML Recommendations be adopted whereverapplicable to satisfy the provisions of legal

(including trade) metrology. Specifications fromother sources be used only in exceptional cases

to be taken to bring the SQAM structures within SouthAfrica in line with international norms. The reviewidentified areas in need of attention, the most import-ant being the control of the measuring instrumentsindicated above.

The SQAM Review made far reaching recom-mendations for legal metrology, namely:

(i) The creation of an Office for Regulatory Reform. The purpose of this proposed Office is to: (i)review existing approaches for formulation of

technical regulations contained in legislation andlegislative instruments, and develop a best practiceapproach for technical regulation formulation; (ii)conduct a comprehensive review of existingtechnical regulations contained in legislation,including legislation relevant to trade and legalmetrology; (iii) require that regulatory impactassessments be compulsory for all future formula-tion of technical regulations; (iv) establish theprinciples for any regulatory marks used in SouthAfrica; and (v) monitor any potential abuses of such regulatory marks and conformity assessment

marks in both the voluntary and mandatorysectors.

Fig. 2 The present administrative processes in South Africa

LEGISLATOR:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:DEPARTMENT OF TRADE

AND INDUSTRY (DTI)

SA CONSTITUTIONTRADE METROLOGY ACT. MEAS-

URING UNITS AND NATIONALMEASURING STANDARDS ACT

PROVISION IS MADE IN ACT FORPROVINCES TO REGULATE

CERTAIN FUNCTIONS IF THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY

REGULATORSOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU

OF STANDARDS (SABS)

INSPECTIONS WITHACCREDITATION

TO ISO 17020

SABS AND BODIESAUTHORISEDBY MINISTER

TYPE APPROVAL

TESTING WITHACCREDITATION

TO ISO 17025

SABS ANDCOMPETENT TEST

AUTHORITIES

VERIFICATIONWITH

ACCREDITATIONTO SABS 0378

PRIVATEVERIFICATIONLABS AND SABS

TRAINING

IN HOUSE

CALIBRATION OFVERIFICATION

STANDARDS WITHACCREDITATION TO

IS0 17025

PRIVATECALIBRATION LABS

AND SABS

INTERNATIONAL& REGIONAL

LIAISON

SABS

ISSUINGAUTHORITY

SABS



14

seminar 2020


where the OIML Recommendations do not coverparticular South African requirements.

(vii) South Africa must continue to participate in thedrafting of OIML Recommendations, includingattending the international meetings of commit-tees that are drafting Recommendations of directrelevance to South Africa. These national interestactivities be funded.

(viii)The proposed Trade Metrology Unit of the DTIundertake an urgent review of funding require-ments to restore trade measurement inspectionfunctions in the Provinces, and sufficient fundsimmediately be allocated by Government to re-establish this function under centralized control.

2.2 SADC Protocol on Trade

Objectives

• To further liberalise intra-regional trade in goods andservices.

• To ensure efficient production within SADC.

• To contribute towards the improvement of theclimate for domestic cross-border and foreign invest-ment.

• To enhance the economic development, diversifica-tion and industrialization of the Region.

• To establish a Free Trade Arena in the SADC Region. To achieve the objectives of the SADC protocol the

following interventions are needed within the legalmetrology arena:

• All technical barriers to trade (TBTs) are to beremoved.

• Standards and Technical regulations are to beharmonised.

To ensure that the above is achieved SADC formed aSQAM forum and each discipline formed its ownregional organization. The legal metrology cooperation

forum SADCMEL was formed in 1996. The otherforums are SADMET (NML), SADCSTAN (Standards)and SADCA (Accreditation).

2.2.1 SADCMEL

The aims of SADCMEL are:

(i) Harmonisation of legal metrology legislation topromote and ensure compatibility with interna-

tional requirements. Specific areas for harmonisa-tion include:

• Labell ing, tolerances and standard pack sizes forprepackages.

• Requirements for instruments and adherence toOIML Recommendations wherever possible.

• Instrument verification and calibration techniques.

• Type approval testing and issuing of approvalcertificates.

(ii) Organisation of training programmes.

(ii i) Arranging of inter-comparisons to ensure uniformity.

(iv) Exchange of metrology related information andassistance where possible.

2.3 WTO/TBT Agreement

The WTO/TBT agreement requires - amongst others -the following:

(i) Technical regulations be placed on the web forinternational comment.

(ii) One stop type approval testing by approved testhouse (OIML MAA scheme).

(ii i) Use of international standards as technical regula-tions wherever possible.

2.4 Advance in technology

New techniques require new and expensive testequipment, which may not be economically viable, foreach country to purchase. This will involve usingmanagement systems to reduce costs to governmentsand using other countries in the region to performcertain tests for the other SADC members.

2.5 Developments in Africa

(i) The development of other trading blocks similar toSADC, Comesa and the East African Union whichwill all need to be linked if NE PAD is to succeed.

(ii ) The dissolving of the OAU and the creation of theAfrican Union.

2.6 New Program for African Development (NEPAD)

The New Program for African Development was devel-oped out of the Millennium Africa Project and is



15

seminar 2020


Transport

Legal metrology’s involvement in this area would be toensure that legislation is in place to control the over-loading of vehicles. These technical regulations, which

would require weighbridges used for weighing roadvehicles to be approved and verified at regular intervals,will ensure the national road network is not damageddue to the overloading of vehicles which is a problem atpresent. Breath alcohol and speed measurementinstruments will also be covered in the proposed regula-tions. These regulations give confidence in the measure-ments made, resulting in a reduction in the number of disputes.

Water and sanitat ion

The legal metrology involvement in this area will be the

instruments used in the sale of water. Domestic watermetering is already regulated within South Africa andwe will have to concentrate on the pre-pay systems nowbeing developed which include communal standpipesfor rural water supply. We foresee this will become thenorm in Africa. A standard for electronic pre-paysystems has already been written and these instrumentswill be approved and verified.

The supply and sale of water in irrigation schemes isalso an area which will have to be addressed in asimilar manner.

Health

In this area the involvement is the same as elsewhere,namely the creation of technical regulations and theapproval and verification of medical instruments.

Agriculture

Ensure that technical regulations are in place to giveconfidence in the measurement of agricultural productsassuring farmers of a fair deal and creating a soundbasis for government to collect excise duties reducingthe burden on the fiscus. Instruments for quality

related measurements such as moisture meters will beincluded.

Environment

This area is a politically sensitive area at the momentdue to the pollution generated by industry and if rebates are to be considered as reward for countrieswho reduce emissions or sanctions are imposed, thenlegal metrology needs to be involved in the measure-ment of such emissions.

Min ing

The same applies here as under agriculture.

intended to lift Africa out of its present socio-economicplight and to place countries both individually andcollectively on a path to sustainable development and atthe same time to participate actively in the worldeconomy. To meet the NEPAD objectives it is also

important that the socio-political aspects be consideredand that countries practice good governance ensuring asound base on which to build.

The objectives and outcomes are as follows:

• Objectives:

Eradicate poverty.

Place countries of Africa both individually andcollectively on a path of sustainable growth anddevelopment.

Halt the marginalisation of Africa in theglobalisation process.

• Expected outcomes: Economic growth and development and increased

employment.

Reduction in poverty.

Diversification of productive activities, enhancedinternational competitiveness and increasedexports.

Increased African integration.

To achieve the objectives of NEPAD an action planwas devised encompassing the following:

• Ensuring conditions for sustainable development.• Identification of sectoral priorities.

• Mobilisation of resources.

• Establishment of new global partnership.

• Implementation of the new partnership for Africa’sdevelopment.

2.6.1 The role of legal metrology in support of

SADC/Afri ca development al goals (N EPAD)

There are many areas within the NE PAD action plan inwhich legal metrology will have to play a vital role andthey are listed below.

Energy

Legal metrology needs to become involved in the sale of energy domestically as well as within Africa. Examplesof this are the proposed gas pipe line from Mozambiqueto South Africa and Eskom, the South African elec-tricity supplier’s expansion into Africa to utilize energysources such as Cahora Bassa hydroelectric scheme in

Mozambique and to improve the electricity network inAfrica using all available resources.



16

seminar 2020


Manufactur ing

The manufacturing arena is most probably the mostimportant.

The aim of NE PAD is to encourage cross bordertrade, improve competitiveness. Technical regulationsneed to be in place to ensure that commodities arecorrectly filled and that measurements are accurate andtraceable to National Standards.

By putting in place a Technical Regulation frame-work which meets international best practice andensuring a uniform implementation which will in turnensure an effective trade measurement system, LegalMetrology Departments in Africa will have assistedgreatly in creating a solid basis from which NEPAD cangrow.

The same can be said for legal metrology’s role in

fields such as mining, agriculture, the environment, etc.It is my belief that without the support of an

effective legal metrology framework, NEPAD will havedifficulty realizing its objectives.

3 The face of legal metrology in South Africaby 2020

With the implementation of the recommendations of the SQAM review, South Africa will have a legal

metrology infrastructure that will be able to meet thechallenges placed on it by all the different drivers forchange mentioned above.

3.1 Legal metrology legislative structureand systems

3.1.1 Legislative structure

The legislative process will have promulgated a Legal

Metrology and Consumer Protection Act and the Technical Regulations required to cover all aspects of Legal M etrology by 2020.

The legislative framework will be i n accordancewith the legislative framework shown in Fig. 1 whichwill meet the requirements of the WTO and will be inline with international best practice.

3.1.2 Legal metrology system

• In line with the OIML MAA on type approval forcertain instruments there will be agreements

amongst countries to accept instruments typeapproved in countries with the capability to typeapprove such instruments.

• The proposed OIML “I” mark for prepacked goodswill be adopted and implemented to promote cross

border trade.• The accreditation system for verification of measur-

ing instruments will be adopted as a means of reducing government’s costs of regulating.

3.1.3 Legal metrology fun ctions

(Adm in istr ati ve processes)

3.1.3.1 Type approval

• Testing done once in the world (OIM L MAA onacceptance of test results).

• SA to participate in OI ML Certificate System for anumber of instruments within own capabilities.

• I f any member states of the SADC are not OIMLMembers they will have regional, bilateral or multi-lateral agreements in place to accept results.

• Private laboratories accredited to ISO 17025 or peerreviewed for the applicable tests and approved by theNational Regulator will undertake type approvaltesting.

• The National Regulator will retain the role of issuing

authority.• More use will be made of component approval to

allow the mix and match of components to constructinstruments according to customer requirements.Compatibility tests and documentation evaluationwill be done.

3.1.3.2 Ver i f icat ion

Verification will be privatised within South Africa by

means of accreditation by the national accreditationbody to SABS 0378 which is a standard based on ISO17025 or current equivalent and tailored for use in legalmetrology.

The privatisation of the verification of instrumentfunction reduces the financial burden on the nationalregulator by reduction of personnel and equipment.

It is also envisaged that, with this accreditationprocess being applied uniformly throughout Africausing a common legal metrology standard againstwhich accreditation takes place e.g. SABS 0378(adopted as an African Union Standard) or current

equivalent, verification officers will operate acrossborders where economically viable.



17

seminar 2020


Fig. 3 The future administrative processes in South Africa by 2020

Matrix 3 The present and future situations

LEGISLATOR:CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:DEPARTMENT OF TRADE

AND INDUSTRY (DTI)

REGULATORSOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU

OF STANDARDS (SABS)

INSPECTIONS WITHACCREDITATION

TO ISO 17020

SABS PROVINCIALAND OTHER BODIES

AUTHORISED BY MINISTER

TYPE APPROVAL

TESTING WITHACCREDITATION

TO ISO 17025

SABSCOMPETENT TESTAUTHORITIES AND

PRIVATE LABORATORIES

VERIFICATIONWITH

ACCREDITATIONTO SABS 0378

PRIVATEVERIFICATIONLABS AND SABS

TRAINING

IN HOUSE

CALIBRATION OFVERIFICATION

STANDARDS WITHACCREDITATION TO

IS0 17025

PRIVATECALIBRATION LABS

AND SABS

INTERNATIONAL& REGIONAL

LIAISON

SABS

ISSUINGAUTHORITY

SABS

SA CONSTITUTION LEGALMETROLOGY & CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT. MEASURINGUNITS & NATIONAL MEASURING

STANDARDS ACT

PROVINCES WILL BE DOINGINSPECTIONSON

PREPACKED GOODS

SABS PRIVATE SABS SABS PRIVATE PROVINCIAL

REGULATOR VERIFICATION REGIONAL CALIBRATION CALIBRATION AUTHORITIES

LABORATORIES OFFICES LABORATORIES LABORATORIES

ACCREDITED ISO 17025 ISO 17025 ISO 17025

TO ISO 17025 & 17025

Type approval (X) √ √ √ √

Verification (X) √ (X) √

Inspection √

Calibration of

Verification (X) √ (X) √ √

Standards

International/

Regional (X) √

liaison

Training (X) √ (X) √ (X) √

(X) = Present

√ = Future



18

seminar 2020


3.1.3.3 In spect ions

All inspection bodies such as the SABS and Provincialauthorities will be accredited to ISO 17020 or current

equivalent, using harmonised legislation in the form of Technical Regulations published as Regional Standardsbased on OIML Recommendations.

An early warning system to alert other countries of nonconforming product or instruments, will be inplace.

3.1.3.4 Calibration of verifi cation standards

The calibration of verification standards will be done bylaboratories accredited to ISO 17025 and that have an

acceptable best measurement capability.

3.1 .3 .5 Train ing

South Africa through its process of having coursesregistered at the South African Qualification Authority(SAQA) will have an established training program inplace.

3.1.3.6 I nternational and regional legislation

South Africa will remain an active member of OIMLand SADCMEL.

South Africa will have ensured that the IndianOcean Legal Metrology Forum (IOLMF) has developedto its full potential and the creation of the SouthAtlantic Legal Metrology Forum (SALMF) in support of the OIML’s aim to have regional organizations in placewhich will link the whole world.

3.1.4 M anagement processes

The management processes will be in line withinternational norms. This wi ll be achieved by using ISOstandards in management systems and OIML Recom-mendations.

3.1.4.1 ISO 17025

Laboratories undertaking the following processes willbe accredited to ISO 17025:

• Type approval testing.

• Calibration of verification standards.

3.1 .4 .2 ISO 17020

The following administrative processes will beaccredited to ISO 17020:

• Inspection of prepacked goods.

• Inspection of measuring instruments.

3.1.4.3 SABS 0378

Laboratories undertaking the following processes will

be accredited to SABS 0378:• Verification of measuring instruments.

3.1.4.4 SAQA (South Afr ican Qu al i f icat ion Author i ty)

All training will be registered with the South AfricanQualification Authority.

3.1 .4 .5 OIM L M AA Scheme

The South African National Responsible Body willpartake in the scheme. The SABS Type Approvallaboratory and private laboratories will be designatedas competent test laboratories.

3.1 .5 Harmonisa tion

All legal metrology technical regulations in South Africa

will be harmonised with international standards as isexpected of OIML Member States.

4 The possible influence of developments inSouth Africa on SADC and Africa in 2020

The following can be seen as possible areas of influenceof SADC and Africa in 2020:

• Legal metrology legislative structures put in place in

South Africa could be accepted by other AfricanUnion member states.



19

seminar 2020


will support the ideals of NEPAD in South Africa andcould be applied by all members of the African Union.

SADC will have implemented similar structures toensure harmonisation of legislation as required by theSADC Trade Protocol.

5 Conclusion

South Africa will have an effective trade measurementsystem underpinned by an internationally acceptablelegislative framework. The acceptance of OIML Recom-mendations as technical regulations and our adminis-trative processes which are managed effectively by theuse of ISO management standards will also instilconfidence.

It is envisaged that the high ideals of NEPAD whichare to ensure that Africa competes as an equal in theglobal arena will necessitate the African Union memberstates looking at implementing similar structures.

The advantages to Africa are:• An international acceptable legal metrology frame-

work.

• Basis for increased export of commodities.

• Confidence in measurements.

• Increased productivity.

• Increased job opportunities.

• SADC member states have harmonised legislation inplace.

• Legal metrology regional organizations such as EuroMediterranean Legal Metrology Forum (EMLMF),Southern African Legal Metrology Cooperation

(SADCMEL), Indian Ocean Legal Metrology Forum(IOLMF) and any others formed to include countriesnot affiliated to the above-mentioned should havefinalised harmonisation of legislation in all the areasmentioned as vital to NEPAD’s success.

• The administrative and management processes put inplace in South Africa, which reduce the cost togovernment, will be accepted as an effective means of ensuring the effective implementation of legalmetrology requirements throughout Africa.

• Technical regulations will be published as Regionalor African standards in line with OIML Recom-

mendations.• Type Approval testing be run under the OIM L MAA

scheme.

• It is envisaged that there will be several traininginstitutions providing courses in legal metrology suchas the Tanzania College of Business Education andthe SADC Resources Centre for Metrology Education.A uniform curriculum would be in place to ensurethe same standard in all countries. It is additionallyenvisaged that a distance learning project will also bein place.

It is envisaged that the developments mentionedabove and the legal metrology structures put in place

STUART CARSTENS

Director,Legal Metrology Department,

SABS (South Africa)



20

seminar 2020


Metrological regulation is done largely by the control of

measuring instruments and so it is concerned with theprecise disciplines of metrology and engineering. In thedevelopment work of the OIML we also find a quitedifferent discipline that depends on judgement and along-term view of progress rather than a precisesolution. In the global harmonisation of legal metrologythere are compromises to be made. The acceptablesolution is not always the best solution, but it isnecessary to find the approach that will meet people’sneeds and aspirations. It is then possible to moveforward, to make some progress.

The scope and power of this method is a major assetthat we should be aware of. It is embedded in theConvention and procedures of the OIML.

The theme of this paper is to be the talent we havefor reconciling many different national and regionalperspectives in our work and the importance of understanding certain issues which could impede ourprogress. In this case our talents include not onlypersonal abilities and good-will but also our collective,constitutional and procedural assets, and practicalengineering logic that can sometimes make the rightsolution fairly obvious.

We must not ignore the scientific foundations of ourwork, and the need for technical investigations and

development; but it is fair to say that progress in theOIML depends on agreement ; that is agreement betweenMember States. One can see that there is already a highlevel of agreement on general objectives, but it is noteasy to agree on how to attain the objectives. The stepson the way are quite complex. To reach agreement on acomplex proposition there has to be a good understand-ing of the issues, usually involving technical, proceduraland also “consequential” factors. Under the heading of consequences we should include, for example, theeffects on manufacturers, traders and consumers -everyone involved needs time to resolve their national

economic and commercial priorities, and, we hope, theneeds of their citizens.

So let us examine the means we have for makingagreements and see what we might do to improve them.Agreement depends on consensus , together withconfidence in the process, and a genuine commitment toimplement decisions.

Firstly, agreements cannot be made by votes; therehas to be a genuine meeting of minds - a consensus.

There is also a process . We have the means (themachinery) to take what may be no more than an ideafrom one person’s mind and develop it through thestructures and procedures of the organisation until wehave a global agreement, established in writing. This isquite a remarkable process, and its ongoing success is amajor achievement, especially for the facilitating role of the Bureau; but it cannot work well unless all parti-cipants are confident in it. We should not be contentwith structures and procedures until they engender

confidence. Then there must be commitment to the outcome. We

are not involved in an academic exercise. Legalmetrology is above all practical. Decisions that we makecan affect the lives of ordinary people, everywhere. Butagreements that do not lead to action may be worse thanuseless. Without a general commitment to implementa-tion there is not only a denial of benefits to the citizenbut also the possibility of establishing unfair advantage.

These factors can lead to a justifiable reluctance to reachagreement.

So we need consensus, confidence and commitment.

We should have the courage to examine some of theproblems or deficiencies that may inhibit confidence inthe process. Then we should examine how things workout in practice, given time, established procedures andgood will. What we find is encouraging, so much so thatit should give us more confidence in the outcome andthus more commitment to the work.

In a seminar concerned with the future of legalmetrology, we should keep in mind that there are twodifferent dimensions or directions to the developmentwork in the OIML, which can broadly be described astechnical and procedural. On the one hand we developRecommendations for control of particular measuringinstruments or measurement processes, and on theother hand we develop the tools and machinery to reachagreements, and procedures for implementing them.Sometimes we find that agreement on proceduraldevelopments is more difficult, possibly because at thisstage in the development of legal metrology, it is moreimportant to us.

Deficiencies in the process may arise not of coursefrom human failings but from the realities of culture,politics, history and geography, and often from oureagerness for progress. Occasionally we see:

• Inadequate consultation;• Cabalistic working groups;

SEMINAR 2020

Progress and

our genius for compromise

MARTIN BIRDSEYE

Director, International, NWML, United Kingdom



21

seminar 2020


at the level of sovereign states. The notion of equalityamong Member States is very important to us. Forvarious reasons it is acceptable, some would sayessential, to have equality in this forum, even when thereare manifestly huge differences in the economic, demo-

graphic and geographical size of the Member States.Where there could be a problem however, is the situa-tion where some of the sovereign Member States findthemselves constitutionally linked, so that whileretaining their separate votes they might be effectivelybound to one policy by common legislative measures.

You will of course know that I am talking of the naturalconcern that other industrialised economies have aboutthe development of the MID in Europe. There may infact be no real problem here, but it is an issue of fairnessand common sense that could threaten our commoncause if it is not explained or resolved.

I feel bold enough to raise this issue because, firstlyI think that there is some obligation on the Europeans toconsider an issue about Europe that concerns theirinternational colleagues, and secondly I see that inpractice there are many remedial factors in the situationand we find that the outcome is not as we may haveperceived it to be. Thirdly it raises so many other pointsabout how we work that it serves as an agenda for adiscussion of the constitutional and proceduralstrengths of the OIML and a long-term approach toprogress.

I am not advocating or contemplating any consti-tutional change. We can see plenty of examples in theworld as a whole where, in spite of there being muchgreater need and real urgency, the lawyers and politicalscientists have failed to solve constitutional problems. InEurope we have many ingenious constitutional develop-ments, including QMV - qualified majority voting, butthese things are hugely complicated and still evolvingafter fi fty years. Constitutional amendments are not forus here, certainly not in this forum.

That leaves us broadly with three other angles toconsider: legal, logical and practical. Having in mindthat the answers should all be consistent, and that wehave very limited time here, I shall leave aside the legal

enquiry for now, consider briefly the logical approach(to see if there may be a real problem) and concentrateon the practical approach. We will be encouraged to findthat there are so many practical courses of action,designed to facilitate progress.

Logically, the “unequal votes” problem should onlybe a real problem if there are practical circumstanceswhere Member States of the EU would be legallyconstrained by a European Directive to a point of viewthat is against their own national priorities. If this is notthe case then they can make their own policy along withany other Member State. So the question is: could a

Member State support a Recommendation that isinconsistent with an existing Directive?

• Apparently “unequal” votes;• Asynchronous progress;• Failures in implementation.

Adequate consultation is necessary, at both nationaland international level, but it is not easy, even in the daysof e-mail. However, it is a vital part of reaching a realconsensus which carries the confidence of all parties.We must accept that the time involved is considerable,even when there are no unnecessary delays. In general,all parties should have an opportunity for considerationand comment and then to examine the comments andsuggestions of all the others. We already have rules tothis effect in the Di rectives for OI M L Techni cal Work .Whatever we do to streamline procedures, we should notforget that confidence depends on open debate.

However, complex technical solutions do notgenerally come from open debate but from hard work in

small teams. That is why we have working groups,where individuals can forget national priorities andconcentrate on the creation of practical proposals. Howfar they should go before presenting proposals to theirinternational committees is a matter for judgement, butit seems essential that all participating Member Statesshould be kept informed of progress and be able tocontribute as they wish. Unofficial networks can seem tobe very effective, but they may be driven by nationalrather than technical priorities and they will beineffective in the long-term if all parties are notconfident in the outcome.

The term “asynchronous progress” refers to the factthat national and regional legislation must often bedeveloped in a timescale appropriate to local prioritiesand therefore this is done independently of the OIMLwork upon which i t should ideally be based. This is notalways a bad thing. The world of technology andbusiness moves on, and independent economies mustreact to it in accordance with the best available informa-tion, which may or may not be available in the form of the latest OIML Recommendation. Thus the OIMLRecommendations must have an ongoing relationship tonational and regional legislation. A prime example of theprocess may be found in the necessarily parallel but

asynchronous development of the EU Measuring Instru-ments Directive (MI D).

I have chosen what is possibly a contentious issue, tobe the subject of a more detailed discussion. Forconvenience I call it the problem of “unequal votes”.

Unequal votes may appear to be impossible. We havealmost an excess of democracy - one country one voteand usually several stages of voting and approval.However, votes appear to be “unequal” if we suspect, forexample, that one country, one policy one vote, iseffected as: one region, one policy, 14 votes. Our NorthAmerican friends will recognise this phenomenon, and

Europeans colleagues should recognise it. As an inter-governmental organisation, the OIML necessarily works



22

seminar 2020


Logically the answer is Yes; because we are talking of a Recommendation, to which there is, according toArticle 8 of the Convention, a moral obligation forimplementation where possib le . That gives exactly theflexibility we need. Note that in practice it is a flexibility

over t ime ; it turns the problem of asynchronous develop-ment into an advantage. If national and regionallegislation must logically fol low the OIML Recom-mendations then, by the nature of development, therewill be differences and scope for improvement at eachstage.

In the case of the MID, the relevant OIML Recom-mendations were, quite rightly, the starting point for thespecific instrument requirements, but the regulatoryprocedures have been developed and the performancerequirements refined to some extent. This wasnecessary, where for example, performance require-

ments were not yet adequately defined by OIMLRecommendations. Europeans will not be inhibitedfrom contributing to further improvements developed inthe forum of the OIML, which, in turn could eventuallybe incorporated into European legislation. (Incidentally,in some cases this can be done by a committee pro-cedure and Commission Directives, avoiding the needfor negotiating amendments to the main Directive.)

So, by simple logic in application of the most basicprinciples of the OIML Convention, we can see that“unequal votes” are probably not a real threat to anyone;and, moreover, we have other, more powerful andpractical ways of dealing with this kind of problem:

• Common sense;• Mutual respect;• Individual responsibili ty;• Good faith;• Engineering solutions;• Scientific facts;• A long-term view; and• Common objectives.

We should look at the ways we work to see how someof these factors are applied, and this will, incidentally,lead us to a view of where we are going - where wil l legal

metrology be in 2020.First there is a matter of common sense and good

faith. A rather unusual, perhaps unique feature of theOIML Convention is that Member States “shall bemoral ly obliged to implement [Conference] decisions asfar as possible.” What is the legal status of a moralobligation? I think that a moral obligation is less bindingbut more useful than a legal obligation. Without a legalrequirement or a rigid timetable for implementation,Recommendations can more easily be developed to thepoint where they are universally acceptable and yet stillachieve the necessary level of harmonisation in the long-

term. In effect they specify the performance require-ments and define the direct ion of development.

Generally speaking, if we decide where we are going,then we are more likely to make progress!

The work of the OIML is intrinsically linked toprogress. Long-term development goes on regardless of local progress or national priorities. Technical Commit-

tees work to develop and revise Recommendations in awell-defined framework that is, in principle, quiteindependent of legislative projects in individual MemberStates and regions. As we have seen it is an asynch-ronous process which may seem inefficient to animpatient or legalistic mind. We can see it as naturalthat there should be supportive developments at variouslevels and regions, that are not exactly in phase.Regional development is now fully supported by theOIML - it is a part of the process.

Thirdly we have respect for and confidence in eachother. Individuals can always have in their mind a right

or logical solution, and this can lead them to the rightway of applying national policy; indeed it enables themto contribute to the development of national policy. Thenormal everyday development procedure of the OIMLprovides a framework in which these things can happen.A well-structured logical document has a power of itsown - national and regional priorities have relativelylittle influence when the long-term answer is fairlyobvious and when the constitutional commitment is oneof principle rather than legal observation. In this wayindividuals and Member States can function asindependent voices.

There is also scope for creative compromise at amore technical level. A classic example is the concept of optional classes for specifying limits of error formeasuring instruments. In general, where there is arange of requirements or where it is possible thatperformance will be enhanced by technologicaldevelopment, then the role of an OIML Recommenda-tion is to provide the framework for specification andcontrol of instruments, rather than a rigid prescription.

The task then is to define a practical series of accuracyclasses upon which Member States can base theirlegislation and into which manufacturers can aim theirproducts. In effect we aim for harmonisation of develop-

ment as a means towards harmonisation of regulation. Technology is increasingly helpful when we seek

scope for practical compromise. Software is powerfuland memory is so cheap, that flexibility can be built inat very low cost. Thus it can be acceptable to require thata measuring instrument type shall have a range of functionality, enough to satisfy diverse nationalrequirements, without placing a significant burden onthe manufacturers. In time we may find that thenational requirements are reconciled. One approachmay become the norm, but in the meantime the OIMLRecommendation will have been serving both or several

parties, providing the means to move forward in themost logical direction.



24

seminar 2020


1 The changing political andeconomic climate

The manufacture of legal measuring instruments isbecoming concentrated in highly industrialised countries,and increasingly controlled by multinational companieswho are supplying the world market. Despite the factthat our client base has ‘globalised’ we (legal metrologyauthorities) still operate within our own strict nationalor ‘economic community’ boundaries, and impose ourown legal and administrative requirements. Nationalpattern approval requirements represent a significantregulatory barrier to international trade. In smallmarkets like Australia, they impose significant costs onmanufacturers and reduce market competition andproduct choice. The net result is an increase in con-sumer prices and slow adoption of new products andtechnologies.

This is a situation which will not be tolerated in the

global economy of the 21st century. It seems inevitablethat we will all be living and working in a climate of economic rationalism and market deregulation. This is adangerous climate for legal metrology authorities. Thefundamental nature of our regulatory role is not wellunderstood by governments or by the community ingeneral, and we are in danger of being dismissed by theyounger generation of bureaucrats, as old-fashionedtechnocrats who create unnecessary barriers to trade.

Unless we, the international legal metrologycommunity, start to respond to the challenges of globalisation and the associated political and economic

imperatives, our prospects of surviving until 2020 do notlook good.

2 Globalisation of legal metrology

In essence, our proposal is that the OIML needs to makethe transition from a ‘harmonisation and coordination’

approach, to an integrated global system of legal metro-logy. The globalisation of legal metrology should reflectthe globalisation of industry and trade, whilst still res-pecting the sovereign rights of individual M emberStates.

The key elements of a global system would be:

• Mutual acceptance arrangements for type approvaltest reports based on OIML Recommendations;

• Pattern approval testing by a small number of special-ised laboratories, located in major manufacturingcountries and regional centres;

• A coordinated international pattern complianceprogram.

M ut ual Acceptance Arran gement s

A “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangementson OIML Type Evaluation” has been developed by themembers of TC 3/SC 5 and has now reached its 9th Com-mittee Draft. This has been a difficult process, but nowappears to be close to reaching general acceptance. Thiswill be a watershed decision in the life of the OIML,

which will have a major impact on the future operationsof all individual Member States and on the BIML.

Ration alisation of pattern approval facili ti es

The introduction of mutual acceptance arrangementswill inevitably lead to a gradual rationalisation of pattern approval testing laboratories. It is anticipatedthat a small number of laboratories, located in the majorindustrialised countries and regional centres, will

specialise in providing this industry service, and theirreports will be accepted by most other M ember States.

The main benefits of this approach would be:

• Economies of scale in providing industry testingservices;

• A single international testing process, avoidingmultiple testing and associated costs and delays formanufacturers;

• Reduction in regulatory barriers to trade;

• Maintenance of a high level of competence andquality systems within specialised laboratories;

• Abili ty of specialist laboratories to invest in newequipment and keep pace with new technologies.

SEMINAR 2020

Pattern approval

and pattern compliancein an age of globalisation –The Australian approach

JUDITH BENNETT - Executive Director,NSC (Australia) andADRIAN CASTER - NSC, Australia



25

seminar 2020


However, there will be some critical issues to beaddressed, in particular:

• The rationalisation of pattern approval testingfacilities could mean that many Member States maylose their technical capabilities; and

• A single pattern approval test is unlikely to be accept-able as an adequate basis for international confidencein the long-term performance of an instrument; so

• A ‘safety net’ will be required, in the form of an inter-national pattern compliance program.

An in ternation al pattern complian ce program

For some time, there has been a recognition amongstCIML Members that there is a strong focus of resourceson pattern approval testing, but very little focus on

ensuring that production instruments conform to type. This leaves the whole system vulnerable to the selectionof so-called “gold plated” instruments by manufacturersseeking pattern approval, who often openly acknow-ledge that they have difficulty in consistently achievingthe standard in their production plants. This practice isperpetuated in an environment in which there is littlemarket surveillance on the part of legal metrologyauthorities. With the implementation of mutual accept-ance arrangements, it will become even more importantfor Member States to ensure that the instrumentsreleased onto their markets comply with the appropriate

pattern approval standards.It is apparent that many countries are not in aposition to carry out national pattern complianceprograms, as such programs are essentially in the publicinterest and must be funded by government. With thedecrease in global industry revenue from patternapproval testing, under an OIML MAA, many nationalgovernments will face a critical decision: to pay the fullcost of maintaining testing facilities and operating aneffective national market surveillance program, or toclose their laboratories and to trust in manufacturerdeclarations that production instruments consistentlycomply with the approved pattern.

The National Standards Commission has chosen theformer option, with the support of the Australiangovernment, because we have a legal responsibility toensure pattern compliance, and because we believe inthe deterrent value of a random surveillance program.However, this is an expensive option. On an interna-tional scale, a multiplicity of national compliance pro-grams would be a very inefficient approach - given thatmany laboratories would be testing the same populationof instruments.

Consistent with a global approach to patternapproval, we see the opportunity for a global approach

to pattern compliance testing. We propose, for theconsideration of Members, that participants in each

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement establish a cooperativepattern compliance program for the instruments whichare covered under the MAA. A coordinated program of sampling and testing of instruments, and the sharing of results, would provide an effective global surveillance

program at a very small cost to individual MemberStates.

Of equal importance would be the opportunity forparticipants to develop joint policies and take collectiveaction against non-compliant manufacturers. The risk of losing global market approval would be a majorincentive for manufacturers to deliver compliantproducts to all markets at all times.

Figure 1 illustrates a possible global approach topattern approval and pattern compliance by themembers of a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement for asingle OIML Recommendation. This model assumes

that the BIML would employ a Data Manager for eachMAA. That person would manage and disseminateinformation, and use the database to determine asampling plan for pattern compliance testing. MAAmembers would pay an annual fee to cover the cost of pattern compliance testing and data management.

We recognise that this proposal is a radical concept,which would require considerable trust between theOIML Member States, and careful planning and design.

There may always be some Members who will retainnational responsibility for pattern compliance, for legalor strategic reasons. However, with a 2020 horizon inview, we present the global model for debate and

consideration by the OIML. The Australian approach to a national pattern

compliance program, and our early experiences, may beof interest in this debate, and are outlined in section 3below.

Fig. 1 A model for ‘global’ pattern approval and pattern compliancewithin an OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement

Issuing Authorities

Pattern approval tes t repor ts

Pattern approval tes t repor ts

Prototype

instrument + $

Production

instruments

Compliance test da ta

Complianceinformation

$

$

Certificates Samplingplan

$

Manufacturers

Data Manager (BIML)

Testing laboratories



26

seminar 2020


• It is a practice of some OIML Issuing Authorities tooutsource some components of pattern approvaltesting to third parties, including instrumentmanufacturers. This practice compounds the problemsof uniformity of interpretation and methodology, and

raises significant questions of confidence in thecapabilities of the third party and the independence of test data. At the present time, the NSC does not acceptthird party data under its mutual recognition arrange-ments.

The design of the Australian pattern compli ance program

All pattern approval examinations include tests of aninstrument’s performance under different influence

factors, particularly temperature, humidity, voltage, andelectromagnetic radiation. These aspects of perform-ance cannot readily be assessed under normal operatingconditions, and problems may go undetected duringtrade use. The NSC has implemented a systematicpattern compliance testing program to address thisissue. The steps in this process were as follows:

• A complete listing was made of all instruments with acurrent Australian pattern approval, indicating allmodels included on each approval certificate.

• I t was decided that each instrument would besubjected to each of the ‘influence factor’ tests over a

5-year period. The program commenced with temp-erature testing, as this was considered to be the mostcritical.

• A pattern compliance database was designed. Thisallows for a planned testing schedule to be entered foreach instrument, and for the progressive recordingand analysis of test results.

• Two non-compliance categories were defined, to assistin interpreting and reporting the findings of theprogram:

- Minor failure: less than or equal to 1.5 × MPE- Major failure: greater than 1.5 × MPE

• Consultations were held with manufacturers andagents, to seek their voluntary participation in theprogram for a trial period. They agreed to supplyrandomly selected instruments from stock, on request,and we agreed to advise them of the results of the testand discuss any non-compliance issues withoutpenalty.

Early experi ences wi th the pattern compli ance program

The program is in i ts very early stages, and has so farbeen limited to nonautomatic weighing instruments.

3 The Australian experience

Strategies adopted i n 2001

In 2001, the National Standards Commission enteredinto its first bilateral Mutual Recognition Agreements -with NWM L in the UK , NMi in the Netherlands, and theMinistry of Consumer Affairs in New Zealand. The keyelements of these agreements are:

• Acceptance of test reports which conform to OIM Lformats (for the selected instrument categories);

• Mutual confidence in test results based on third partyaccreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 by a signatory to theILAC MRA;

• A focus on agreements which will facilitate tradebetween Australia and its major overseas tradingpartners, and optimise benefits for Australian manu-facturers and importers.

In parallel with the introduction of mutual recogni-tion arrangements, the NSC also announced that itwould implement a national pattern complianceprogram. Our objective in doing this was to make allmanufacturers aware that we have an effective marketsurveillance system in place, and we expect productioninstruments to meet the approved pattern, whether theyare initially tested in Australia or accepted under mutual

recognition arrangements.

Early experi ences wit h m ut ual r ecogni ti on arran gement s

In the early stages of processing pattern approvalapplications under our mutual recognition arrange-ments, we have encountered a number of issues.

• There are slight differences in interpretation andapplication of OIML requirements between testinglaboratories. There is an ongoing need to discuss and

resolve points of interpretation, to ensure uniformityof practice, and this is a constructive process for allconcerned. However, this experience suggests that theimplementation of an OIML MAA could involve amajor exercise in clarification and alignment of procedures. It will be important to ensure that agreedinterpretations are systematically incorporated intorevisions of OIML documents by the relevant

Technical Committees.

• There are some differences in methods of testing andthe design of testing equipment between laboratories.In some cases these can lead to differences in test

results and performance evaluations. This is an areawhich warrants further investigation.



27

seminar 2020


However, some significant issues have alreadyemerged.

• Australia does not have many manufacturers of weighing instruments, so the majority of instrumentsare imported via local agents. In some cases the localagents have been cooperative, but in some cases wehave had to wait for overseas manufacturers to supplya ‘suitable’ instrument, as stocks are not always heldin Australia. This leaves the process open to selectionof a ‘gold plated’ instrument, which defeats thepurpose of the program.

• Although this ini tial program is voluntary, we wouldexpect to take action against non-compliant manu-facturers after the trial period. As the majority of instruments are distributed through agents, it will bevery difficult to have any impact on instrumentsalready sold into the marketplace, so that any

rectification will only apply to new instruments.Unilateral withdrawal of approvals in Australia couldprove controversial, and would have limited impacton manufacturers, unless supported by other OIMLMembers. We are not aware of any simple mechanismfor sharing information or taking collective action.

• The results of 27 tests scheduled for stage 1 of theprogram are shown in Figure 2. In summary:

- 9 instruments complied with the test require-ments;

- 9 instruments had a minor failure;- 1 instrument had a major failure;

- 4 instruments are no longer manufactured; and- 4 instruments have still not been supplied by

manufacturers.

• Incidents of non-compliance have been discussedwith the relevant manufacturers. In all cases theywere surprised and concerned by the findings, werekeen to discuss the results in detail, and have initiatedremedial action. This has been a very constructiveoutcome.

These preliminary findings suggest that there couldbe a significant level of non-compliance of nonauto-matic weighing instruments, particularly at the

extremes of the temperature range. The sample size issmall and most failures are minor, but this limitedevidence is sufficient to justify the ongoing allocation of resources to this work. The program will be extended toother instrument categories, to build an overall under-standing of compliance issues and to identify issueswhich need to be raised with manufacturers, and/orwith the relevant OIML Technical Committees.

4 Summary

In our view, the International Organization of LegalMetrology should respond to the economic and political

imperatives of the 21st century by developing a globalsystem for the pattern approval and pattern compliancetesting of legal measuring instruments.

Mutual Acceptance Arrangements will be the firstimportant step in this process. Such arrangements willsignificantly reduce technical barriers to trade, but arealso expected to lead to a major rationalisation of technical facilities, resulting in a few large specialistlaboratories in major manufacturing countries andregional centres.

We have proposed, for the consideration by theOIML, that a pattern compliance program be introducedas part of each MAA, to provide an effective marketsurveillance function for the global marketplace, on acost-sharing basis. Early Australian experience withpattern compliance testing suggests that such a programis necessary.

Instrument N° Pass Fail Comm ents

1 × − Major Failed -10, TEOZ all Temps

2 × − Minor Failed 40

3 ×

4 ×

5 × − Minor Failed TEOZ 20 - 406 ×

7 × − Minor Failed TEOZ 20 - 40

8 No longer made

9 ×

10 Out of business

11 × − Minor Failed TEOZ 20 - 40

12 × − Minor Failed -10 and 40

13 × − Minor Failed -5, +5

14 No longer made

15 ×

16 Nothing supplied

17 Nothing supplied

18 (LC) × − Minor Failed MDLOR -10, 20

19 (LC) ×

20 No longer made

21 (LC) Nothing supplied

22 (LC) × − Minor Failed -10, +5

23 (Ind) ×

24 × − Minor Failed 40 and Vmin

25 (Ind) Nothing supplied

26 ×

27 (Ind) ×

Fig. 2 Results of 27 tests scheduled for stage 1 of the program



28

update


Issuing Authority / Au to r i téde déli vr an ce

Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi)Certin B.V., The Netherlands

R60/2000-NL1-02.02Type 0765 (Cl ass C)

Mettler-Toledo Inc., 150 Accurate Way,Inman, SC 29349, USA

This list is classified by IssuingAuthority; updated informationon these Authorities may beobtained from the BIML.

Cette li ste est cla ssée par Au tor ité de déli vr an ce; les in for m ati on s

àjour relat iv es àces Au to ri tés son t dispon ibl es auprès du BIML.

OIML Recommendation ap-plicable within the System /

Year of publicationRecommandation OIML applicable dans le cadre du Système / An née d'édit i on

Certified pattern(s)

Modèle( s) cer t i fié(s)

Applicant

Demandeur

The code (ISO) of the Member State inwhich the certificate was issued, withthe Issuing Authority’s serial number if there is more than one in that MemberState.

Le code (I SO) in dicatif de l'État M embre ayan t déli vréle cert if i cat , av ec le numéro de séri e de l’Au to ri téde Déli vr an ce s’i l en exi ste plu s d’une dans cet État M embre.

For each Member State,certificates are numbered inthe order of their issue(renumbered annually).

Pour chaqu e État M embre, les cert i fi cat s son t n uméro tés par or dr e de déli vr an ce (cett e nu mérot ati on est ann uelle).

Year of issue

An née de délivran ce

The OIM L Certifi cate System for M easurin g Instruments was introducedin 1991 to facilitate administrative procedures and lower costs

associated with the international trade of measuring instruments subjectto legal requirements.

The System provides the possibility for a manufacturer to obtain an OIM Lcertificate and a test report indicating that a given instrument patterncomplies with the requirements of relevant OIML InternationalRecommendations.

Certificates are delivered by OIML Member States that have establishedone or several Issuing Authorities responsible for processing applicationsby manufacturers wishing to have their instrument patterns certified.

OIML certificates are accepted by national metrology services on avoluntary basis, and as the climate for mutual confidence and recognitionof test results develops between OIM L Members, the OIML CertificateSystem serves to simplify the pattern approval process for manufacturersand metrology authorities by eliminating costly duplication of applicationand test procedures.

L e Système de Certi ficats OI M L pou r les I nstru ments de Mesur e a étéintroduit en 1991 afin de faciliter les procédures administratives et

d’abaisser les coûts liés au commerce international des instruments demesure soumis aux exigences légales.

Le Système permet à un constructeur d’obtenir un certificat OIML et unrapport d’essai indiquant qu’un modèle d’instrument satisfait auxexigences des Recommandations OIML applicables.

Les certificats sont délivrés par les États Membres de l’OIML, qui ont établiune ou plusieurs autorités de délivrance responsables du traitement des

demandes présentées par des constructeurs souhaitant voir certifier leursmodèles d’instruments.

Les services nationaux de métrologie légale peuvent accepter les certificatssur une base volontaire; avec le développement entre Membres OIML d’unclimat de confiance mutuelle et de reconnaissance des résultats d’essais, leSystème simplifie les processus d’approbation de modèle pour les

constructeurs et les autorités métrologiques par l’élimination desrépétitions coûteuses dans les procédures de demande et d’essai.

Systèm e de Cer tifica ts O IM L:Certificats enregistrés 2 0 0 2 . 0 5 – 2 0 0 2 . 0 7

Pour des informations à jour: www.oiml .org

O IM L Cer tifica te System :Certificates registered 2 0 0 2 . 0 5 – 2 0 0 2 . 0 7

For up to d a te informa tion: www.oiml .org



29

update



Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB),Germany

R51/1996-DE-99.05 Rev. 2L2-PTL s-... (Classes Y(a) an d Y(b))

Mettler-Toledo (Albstadt) GmbH, Unter dem Malesfelden 34,

D-72458 Albstadt, Germany


National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML),United Kingdom

R51/1996-GB1-02.01 Rev. 1Type Gemi ni (Classes X(1) and Y( a))

Herbert Industrial Ltd, Smithfield House, Rookwood Way,Haverhill, Suffolk CB9 8PB, United Kingdom



R60/2000-DE-02.01Type C16.. (Classes C1 up t o C5)

Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnic Wägetechnik GmbH,Im Tiefen See 45, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany

R60/2000-DE-02.02HBB.. (Class C3)

Celtron Technologies Inc., 15F, No. 86, Sec. 1 Hsin Tai Wu Road,Hsi Tzu, Taipei Hsien, R.O.C, Taiwan


Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi) Certin B.V.,The Netherlands

R60/2000-NL1-02.11

I L ( Class C)

Mettler-Toledo (Changzhou) Scale & System L td.,111 Changxi Road, Changzhou, J iangsu 213001, China

R60/2000-NL1-02.12SSP1260 (Class C)


R60/2000-NL1-02.13Type SBC (Class C)


R60/2000-NL1-02.14Type SSP1241 (Class C)


R60/2000-NL1-02.15Type LCC11 (Cl ass C)

A&D Instruments Ltd., 24 Blacklands Way, Abingdon BusinessPark, Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 1DY, United Kingdom

R60/2000-NL1-02.16 Rev. 1PW15../.. (Classes C and D )

Hottinger Baldwin Messtechnic Wägetechnik GmbH,

Im Tiefen See 45, D-64293 Darmstadt, Germany

R60/2000-NL1-02.17Type 0805 ( Class C)

Mettler-Toledo Inc., 150 Accurate Way, Inman, SC 29349, USA

R60/2000-NL1-02.18Types 1042 and 1042 Symmetr ic (Class C)

Tedea Huntleigh International Ltd., 5a Hatzoran St.,Netanya 42506, I sraël

R60/2000-NL1-02.19Type MP50/xxx ( Class C)

GLOBAL Weighing Technologies GmbH, Meiendorfer Str. 205,D-22145 Hamburg, Germany

R60/2000-NL1-02.20Type MP51/xxx ( Class C)

GLOBAL Weighing Technologies GmbH, Meiendorfer Str. 205,D-22145 Hamburg, Germany

INSTRUMENT CATEGORY CATÉGORI E D ’ I NSTRUM ENT

Automatic catchweighing instrumentsI nst ru ment s de pesage tri eu rs-éti queteur s

à fonct i on nement autom at iqu e R 51 (1996)

INSTRUMENT CATEGORY CATÉGORI E D ’ I NSTRUM ENT

Metrological regulation for load cells(applicable to analog and/or digital load cells)Réglem ent at i on métrol ogi qu e des cell u les de pesée (app li cab le au x cellu les de pesée à affi chage ana logique et/ou numéri que)

R 60 (2000)



30

update




R61/1996-DE-02.01Siw arex A, Siw arex AWS for accuracy class Ref ( 0.2)

Siemens AG Fürth, Würzburger Str. 121, D-90766 Fürth, Germany


National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML),United Kingdom

R61/1996-GB1-02.01Type MX1 ( reference accur acy class Ref X( 0.5))

Weitek, Via A. Sabin, I-44020 - Gallo - Ferrara, Italy



R76/1992-DE-99.04 Rev. 1Type DX BI 500 (Classes II , II I and I II I)

Sartorius A.G., Postfach 32 43, D-37070 Göttingen, Germany

R76/1992-DE-00.09 Rev. 4iso-TEST (Classes I, I I , II I and I II I)

Sartorius A.G., Weender Landstraße 94-108, D-37075 Göttingen,Germany

R76/1992-DE-01.06 Rev. 1Types DS BI 300; DN B I 300; DQ BI 300; DY BI 300; DZ BI 300 (Class II I)


R76/1992-DE-01.08 Rev. 1Types BC BL 100, BD BL 200, BF BL 500 (Classes I, II and II I )


R76/1992-DE-02.01Type M2000L (Class I I I )

ETASIS Elektronik Tarti Aletleri ve Sistemleri San. ve Tic. A.S.,Uluönder Mahallesi 1. Cadde No: 18, Eskisehir, Turkey

R76/1992-DE-02.02Types DX BO 300, DY BO 300 (Classes II I and II I I )


R76/1992-DE-02.04Types CE... (Class II I )

Bizerba GmbH & Co. KG, Wilhelm-Kraut-Straße 65,D-72336 Balingen, Germany

R76/1992-DE-02.06Types ES... (Class I I I )

Bizerba GmbH & Co. KG, Wilhelm-Kraut-Straße 65,D-72336 Balingen, Germany


Danish Agency for Development of Tradeand Industry, Division of Metrology, Denmark

R76/1992-DK-02.02PWI (Classes II I and II II )

ESIT Electronics, Mühürdar Cad. No. 91, Kadiköy, TR-81300 Istanbul, Turkey


Centro Español de Metrologia, Spain

R76/1992-ES-02.01Non autom atic, graduated, self-i ndi cating, electron ic coun ter-top weighing i nstrument, type “L” in tended for di rect sale to th e publi c

(Class II I) DIBAL S.A., c/ Astintze Kalea, 24, Poligono Industrial Neinver,E-48016 Derio (Bilbao-Vizcaya), Spain


Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMi) Certin B.V.,The Netherlands

R76/1992-NL1-02.15 Rev. 1DS-520 (Class II I)

Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd., 13-12 Kugahara, 5-Chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8580, Japan

INSTRUMENT CATEGORY CATÉGORI E D’IN STRUMENT

Automatic gravimetric filling instrumentsDoseuses pon déral es à fon cti onnement au tomati que

R 61 (1996)


Nonautomatic weighing instrumentsI nstr ument s de pesage à fon cti onn ementnon automatique

R 76-1 (1992), R 76-2 (1993)



31

update


R76/1992-NL1-02.17Type 8434(RN00) ( Class II I )


R76/1992-NL1-02.18BM -1 (Class II I)

Digital Scales S.A., Poligono Industrial Larrondo, BehekoEtorbidea, no. 2 Naves 2, 3, 4, E-48180 Loiu Vizcaya, Spain

R76/1992-NL1-02.19LP-II (Class II I )

CAS Corporation, CAS Factory #19 Kanap-ri, Kwangjeok-myon, Yangju-kun Kyungki-do, Rep. of Korea

R76/1992-NL1-02.20BM -2 and BM -3.. (Class II I)

Digital Scales S.A., Poligono Industrial Larrondo, BehekoEtorbidea, no. 2 Naves 2, 3, 4, E-48180 Loiu Vizcaya, Spain

R76/1992-NL1-02.21Type AEA ( Class I)

ADAM Equipment Co. Ltd., Bond Avenue, Denbigh EastIndustrial E state, M ilton K eynes MK1 1SW, United Kingdom

R76/1992-NL1-02.22Type WAA or WAX (Class I)

Radwag Zaklad Mechaniki, 26-600 Radom, ul. Grudniowa 37/39,Poland


Gosstandart of Russian Federation,Russian Federation

R76/1992-RU-02.01Scale BI IA (Class II I)

J SWMC “TENSO-M”, 38, Vokzalnaya str, Kraskovo, LyuberetskiiDistrict, Moscow region, 140050, Russian Federation

R76/1992-RU-02.02Scale BI I (Class II I)


R76/1992-RU-02.03Scale BA (Class I I I )




R106/1997-DE-02.01SOLAR accur acy classes 0.2; 0.5; 1 and 2

Pfister Waagen GmbH, Stätzlinger Straße 70, D-86165 Augsburg,Germany


Gosstandart of Russian Federation,Russian Federation

R106/1997-RU-02.01Scale BII -30 (Class 0.5 for coupled wagon -Class 0.2 for total tr ain)

Avitec-Plus Ltd., 122, Malisheva str, Yekaterinburg,Sverdlovsk region 620078, Russian Federation


Swedish National Testing and Research Institute AB,Sweden

R117/1995-SE-02.01Fuel Dispensers for M otor Vehicles, model Global Star (Cl ass 0.5)

Dresser Wayne AB, Limhamnsvägen 109, SE-200 61 LIMHAMN,Sweden

Updated informationon OIM L cert ificate s:

www.oiml.org


Automatic rail-weighbridgesPonts-bascules ferrovi aires àfonct ion nement

automatique

R 106 (1997)


Fuel dispensers for motor vehiclesDi str i bu teur s de carbu ran t pou r véhi cu les à moteu r

R 117 (1995) [+ R 118 (1995)]



32

update


T

he 18th meeting of the WELMEC Committee washeld in Vienna, Austria on 13–14 June 2002,

hosted by the Federal Office of Metrology andSurveying (BEV). The Committee was given a warm welcome to

Austria by Mr. August Hochwartner (President of theFederal Office of Metrology and Surveying) and Mr.Koprivnikar (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs andLabor). Mr. Koprivnikar pointed out the important workdone by WELMEC to achieve a harmonized Europeanapproach to legal metrology and mentioned the tasks tobe carried out in the future to make this possible.

Mr. Freistetter welcomed delegates and thanked theCommittee for electing him as Chairman. The Com-mittee and the new Chairman both expressed theirappreciation to Dr. Bennett for his Chairmanship overeleven years.

The first item on the agenda involved a presentationon the legal metrology structure in Austria. Dr. ArnoldLeitner, Director of the Metrology Service at BEV, gavean informative presentation describing the way in whichthe organization had dealt with the new approachconcerning the amendment of the Legal Metrology Actin Austria.

Developments since the founding of WELMEC hadmade it necessary to update some of the internal pro-cedures and also the membership policy.

Another important point of discussion was theamendment of the WELMEC Type Approval Agreementto include OIML R 129 in Annex 1 of the Type ApprovalAgreement (and adoption of the amendments to Annex 2of the Agreement concerning OIM L R 129 for Austria,Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,Norway, Switzerland and the United K ingdom).

The Committee also noted the information fromGermany to be included in Annex 2 concerning OIMLR 117 and R 118 and instructed Members to send theirviews on additional groups of measuring instruments tobe included in the agreement by 30 September 2002.

The WELMEC working groups had been very busysince the last Committee meeting and had been – on the

basis of the discussions in the meeting – charged withnew or additional tasks for the near future.

Working Group reports

The Committee approved the publication of theWG 2 Guide WELMEC 2.3 Guide for Exami nin g Soft-

w are (Weighin g I nstrument s) and included automaticweighing instruments in the terms of reference, asspecified in the Measuring Instruments Directive.

The tasks of WG 4 have been included in WG 8’swork program, but WG 4 has been allocated newactivities in relation to general aspects of legalmetrology.

WG 5 is preparing a Guide for market surveillanceand has also proposed to take the necessary steps toensure that WELMEC will be accepted as anAdministrative Cooperation (ADCO) in the field of nonautomatic weighing instruments.

The main task of WG 6 has been the preparation of additional guides in the field of pre-packagedproducts and draft guides were presented at theCommittee Meeting. Some points were still notfinalized in time for the Committee Meeting and sothe adoption process will be launched in the near

future. WG 7has been successful in obtaining an EU-funded

work project under the EU Growth Program and willnow commence the project concerning “MID Soft-ware”. A very important task awaiting WG 7 is alsoits responsibili ty for horizontal questions concerningsoftware, transfer of data and other related ques-tions.

The main task of WG 8 was to contribute to thediscussions on the MID in the European Councilprocedure as a technical forum. This WG had metfour times since the last Committee Meeting and hasbeen looking at all the instrument-specific annexes of the MID as well as Annexes I to IV. Now WG 8 hasalso been given the task of looking at the horizontalissues of the Directive, identifying the need for aharmonized approach, and presenting the resultswith new terms of reference at the next CommitteeMeeting.

WG 10 had a guide ready for presentation (Gui de for

the use of an ali bi r ecordi ng devi ce (pr in ter or storage)

in m easur in g system s in l iqu ids other than w ater) andit was agreed that reaching a consensus will be done

by e-mail to shorten the time needed to make thisGuide available.

RLMO MEETING

18th WELMEC Committee

MeetingVienna, 13–14 June 2002

GABRIELE WESSELY , WELMEC Secretary



33

update


Amongst others, the follow in g main Decisions were taken du ri ng the

WELMEC Comm itt ee M eetin g in Vienn a

on 13–14 June 2002:

Thanks to Seton Bennett for his work as Chairman since 1990

Instructs the Members to give their views to the Secretariat about the structure, organization and voting procedures during CommitteeMeetings of WELMEC by 30 September 2002

Approves the Procedures for WELMEC activities 2002 with slight amendments

Adopts the Member Policy of admitting countries with a signed Europe Agreement as WEL MEC Associate Members. Cyprus, Maltaand Turkey will be informed about all activities within WELMEC and the policy will be reconsidered during the next CommitteeMeeting

Instructs the conveners of Working Groups to send their views to the Secretariat about the working methods and access to the WGmeetings by 30 September 2002

Approves the publication of WELMEC Guide 2.3 Gui de for Exam in ing Software (Weighing In strum ents)

Instructs WG 6 to consider the situation of Associate Members concerning pre-packages

Instructs Members to send comments on the three draft guides concerning pre-packages by 31 October 2002 and if possible have thedrafts agreed by e-mail

Instructs the Conveners of WG 2, WG 6 and WG 7 to present a common position concerning the AWI in relation to pre-packages

Instructs WG 10 to finalize the e-mail voting for the Gu ide for the use of an Ali bi Recordin g Device and submit the result to theSecretariat, and the Secretariat accepts to try to reach a consensus for this Guide by e-mail from the Committee Members

Instructs the convener of WG 4 to look at general aspects of legal metrology and work out terms of reference to be presented at thenext Committee Meeting

Instructs WG 8 to look at the horizontal issues of the MID, identifying the need for a harmonized approach, starting with module H1and present this, along with new terms of reference at the next Committee Meeting

Instructs the Committee Members to evaluate the draft of the Strategy Document and Action Plan presented, and send their commentsand remarks to the Secretariat by 30 September 2002

Concern in g the WELM EC Type Approval Agreement:

Adopts the amendments to Annex 1 of the Type Approval Agreement to include OIML R 129

Adopts the amendments to Annex 2 of the Type Approval Agreement concerning OIML R 129 for Austria, Belgium, Denmark,Germany, I taly, L uxembourg, Norway, Swi tzerland and the United K ingdom

Notes the information from Germany to be included in Annex 2 concerning OIML R 117 and R 118

Instructs the Members to send their views for additional groups of measuring instruments to be included in the agreement by 30

September 2002

Some very important information concerning theMID was given. The Committee discussions centered onprogress in the Council Working Group, the contribu-tions of WG 8 and the future plans under the DanishPresidency.

Mr. Christensen, Danish Chairman of the MIDCouncil Working Group during the Danish Presidency,said he planned to continue the hard work carried outby Spain during their Presidency and four meetings of the Council Working Group were currently planned. Hisgoal is to reach political agreement by November and he

plans to take a new approach to dealing with outstand-ing matters by regrouping the programs.

The Committee was updated on the situationconcerning the application of OIML Recommendationsfor European purposes. The European Commission has

suggested different wording in the text of the MID sothat in the amended version the use of OIML documentsis facilitated.

In October 2000 the Commission invited applica-tions for EU funding for two-year projects under itsDedicated Call 10/00 Topic IV.34. Three WELMEC



34

update


Chairman explained that it was his intention to publishthis document together with the WELMEC MemberDocument so that there is only one document onWELMEC strategy and policy. Some CommitteeMembers wanted to make slight amendments to the

document, so the Committee was asked by the Chair-man to send comments on it to the Secretariat by 30September 2002 (see Resolution 23). These commentswill be considered and a new document presented at thenext Committee Meeting to discuss an amended strategyand policy approach in WELMEC.

Representatives from several Observer Organiza-tions also attended the meeting, and the WELMECCommittee heard reports from the OIML, Euromet andthe APLMF.

The next Committee Meeting will be held in M adrid

on 8–9 May 2003, at the kind invitation of Mr. Robles, of the Centro Español des Metrologìa.

Member States applied and are now carrying out theirrespective projects in parallel, but many countries areinvolved in each project.

The first project is entitled Un iform test procedur es

and test report form ats for aspir ant N otif ied Bodies under

the M easur in g I nstruments Dir ective and concerns gasmeters, liquid flow meters and taximeters. The secondproject concerns the MID AWI Them atic N etwork ,mainly focusing on the interpretation of the essentialrequirements of the MID and concerns automatic catch-weighing instruments, front end loaders, utilization of OIML R 76 test results and MID Module H1. The thirdproject concerns MID software and covers the definitionand elaboration of software requirements, testing andvalidation, back tracing of software requirements, futureaspects, project co-ordination, dissemination of resultsand the organization of information days.

Another point was the presentation of an updatedstrategy document to the WELMEC Committee, and the

Delegates attending the 18th WELMEC Committee Meeting



35

update


CECIP, the Eu ropean Comm itt ee of Weighin g I nstrument Manufac turers , held its 52nd General Assembly inErmelo, The Netherlands, at the invitation of the DutchFederation FHI Weeginstrumenten.

In line with CECIP’s policy of openness to the worldmarket and following the invitation of a Chinese delega-tion in 2000 and the President of the US ScaleManufacturers Association Mr. David Castle in 2001,this year CECIP’s guest was Dr. Alexander Korobkin,President of the Russian Federation company Massa-K.

There were fruitful exchanges between the twelve CECIPFederations representing the following countries:Czech Republi c, Fin land, F rance, German y, H un gary,

I taly, Netherlands, Slovak Republi c, Spain , Swi tzerland,Ukrain e, Un ited Kin gdom

The General Assembly is also the opportunity toinvite experts or key individuals from international orEuropean bodies to report on their policies and to sharetheir views on weighing-related subjects. This year theAssembly was honored to welcome:

Mr. C. Groeneveld of the FHI Office, who gave aspeech on In strumentation in The Netherlands ;

Dr. Jan Basten of NMi, who gave a speech on Legal M etrology in The Netherlands ;

Professor Dr. Manfred Kochsiek, OIML Vice-President,who gave a speech on Contributi ons by in ternation al organi zation s to th e global measurement system ;

Dr. Klaus Dieter Sommer, Director of the ThuringeMetrology and Verification Authority, who presentedCal ibrat ion and ver i f icat ion: two procedures with comparable objecti ves bu t di fferin g strategies ; and

Dr. Alexander Korobkin, President of the RussianFederation company Massa-K, who gave a presenta-tion on The weighin g in dustry in Ru ssia .

Each Federation then presented the situation of theweighing industry in its country, including a table sum-marizing weighing instrument production in Europe,which indicates a general growth trend in productioncompared to 2000 with the instigation of the Euro,

which required price-computing scales to be replacedboth in the field of trade and and in the retail sector.

During the afternoon the statutory part included, asin previous years:

Activity reports for each Working Group:

The Legal Metrology Group, which is continuingwith its task of coming up with proposals andexaminations:

of OIML documents, especially the revision of Recommendations dealing with automaticweighing instruments;

of European Commission documents, especiallythe draft MID;

of WELMEC (European Cooperation in Legal Metrology ) documents, especially harmonizationguides.

The Bu siness and Commerce Group, which ensures

healthy market competition and which monitorsthe interests of manufacturers and consumers,especially concerning the draft MID.

The Bureau, which takes care of the day-to-daymanagement of the Committee and of its develop-ment by passing on experience acquired to theyounger Federations of those countries that comeknocking at the European Union’s door, and bycreating ties with the Federations of weighinginstrument manufacturers around the world,bringing on board new CECIP members, such asUkraine in 2000, and by creating ties with theChinese, American, Russian or J apanese Federa-tions.

Sincere thanks were expressed to Dr. Klaus Wursterfor the work he had accomplished during his fiveyears as President, following which a new Bureauwas elected comprising:

President Tim CooperUn it ed Kin gdom Federati on

Vice-President Caroline ObrechtSwi ss Federati on

Vice-President Fabio MartignoniI tali an Federati on

Vice-President K laus WursterGerm an Federati on

Permanent Secretary Michel TurpainFrench Federati on

Our Dutch friends had made an excellent job of organizing this General Assembly in the attractivesettings of a superb Conference Center, the HerrlickheijdVan Ermelo. The day’s work was followed by a visit tothe polders, including a steam pumping works and a trip

to the Schokland site. Many thanks to our Dutch friendsand see you next year in Switzerland!

CECIP

52nd General Assembly

Ermelo, The Netherlands

10 May 2002

MICHEL TURPAIN, Permanent Secretary



36

update


Le CECIP, Com i téEu ropéen des Constru cteur s d’I nst ru - ments de Pesage , vient de tenir sa 52ème Assemblée Géné-

rale à Ermelo aux Pays-Bas, à l’invitation de laFédération Hollandaise, FMI Weeginstrumenten.

Allemagne 727 +11 % 479 248

Germany +8 % +7 %

Espagne 121 +11 % 28 12

Spain – 36 % – 25 %

Finlande

Finland

France 194.5 +11.2 % 69.5 136.1

France – 1.7 % +14.2 %

Hongrie

Hungary

Italie 129.3 +45.7 % 25.5 26.5

Italy +25 % +35 %

Pays Bas

Netherlands

Rép. Slovaque

Slovak Republic

Rép. Tchèque 11.4 – 5.1 % 1.5 9.8

Czech Republic +7 % +77 %

Royaume-Uni 195.3 +2 % 130.6 141.7

United Kingdom – 3.9 % +7.7 %

Suisse 153.4 48.2

Switzerland +5.1 % 0 %

UkraineUkraine

Statistiques, Industrie du Pesage (2001) Weighing Industry Statistics (2001)

Pays

Country

ProductionHT(Million Euro)

Ex VAT (Million Euro)

Variation

/ 2000

Export (Million Euro)

Variation/ 2000

Import (Million Euro)

Variation/ 2000

CECIP

52ème Assemblée Générale

Ermelo, Pays-Bas

10 mai 2002

MICHEL TURPAIN, Secrétaire Permanent

Après la venue d’une délégation chinoise en 2000,puis celle de M. David Castle, Président de la “ScaleManufacturers Association” des États-Unis en 2001,nous avons reçu cette année le Dr. Alexander Korobkin,

Président de la société Massa-K de la Fédération deRussie poursuivant notre politique d’ouverture dans unmarché mondial. Des échanges fructueux ont pu se faireavec les douze Fédérations du CECIP représentant lespays suivants:

Allemagne, Espagne, Fi nl ande, Fran ce, Hon grie, I tali e,Pays-Bas, Répu bl i qu e Slov aqu e, Répu bl i qu e Tchèqu e,

Royaum e-Uni , Sui sse, Ukrain e

L’Assemblée Générale est aussi l’occasion d’inviterdes experts ou des personnalités d’organismes interna-tionaux ou européens pour nous faire part de leur

politique ou de leur point de vue sur des sujets touchantle pesage. Cette année nous avions l’honneur de recevoir:



37

update


Le Groupe Affai res et Commerce qui veille à uneconcurrence saine sur les marchés et aux intérêtsdes constructeurs et des consommateurs, enparticulier dans le projet de Directive sur lesInstruments de Mesure.

Le Bureau qui assure la gestion quotidienne duComité et son développement, en apportant notreexpérience aux jeunes Fédérations des pays quifrappent à la porte de l’Union Européenne, enprenant contact avec les Fédérations de construc-teurs d’instruments de pesage à travers le monde,amenant de nouveaux membres au CECIP, commel’Ukraine en 2000, en créant des liens avec lesFédérations de Chine, des Etats-Unis d’Amérique,de Russie ou du J apon.

Après les cinq années de présidence du Dr. K lausWurster, qui fut chaleureusement remercié pour letravail accompli, nous avons procédé à l’élection d’unnouveau Bureau dont la composition est la suivante:

Président Tim CooperFédération Royaume-Uni

Vice-Présidente Caroline ObrechtFédération Suisse

Vice-Président Fabio MartignoniFédération Italie

Vice-Président K laus Wurster

Fédération AllemagneSecrétaire Permanent Michel Turpain

Fédération France

Nos amis hollandais avaient parfaitement organisécette Assemblée Générale dans le cadre verdoyant d’unsuperbe centre de congrès, le Herrlickheijd Van Ermelo.Cette journée de travail fut suivie d’une visite despolders, avec une station de pompage à vapeur etdécouverte du site de Schokland. Merci à nos amisHollandais et à l’année prochaine en Suisse!

Monsieur C. Groeneveld du Bureau FHI, qui nous aprésenté L’instru mentat ion dans les Pays-Bas ;

Dr. Jan Basten du NMi, qui nous a présenté La métrol ogi e légale dan s les Pays-Bas ;

Professeur Dr. Manfred Kochsiek, Vice-Président de

l’OIML, qui nous a présenté Les contributions des organi sation s in ternat io nal es au système de mesure global ;

Dr. Klaus Dieter Sommer, Directeur de l’Autorité deMétrologie et de Vérification de Thuringe, qui nous aprésenté Éta lonnage et véri fi cat i on : deux procédu res avec des objecti fs com par abl es mai s des str atégies di ffé- rentes ; et

Dr. Alexander Korobkin, Président de la sociétéMassa-K de la Fédération de Russie, qui nous a pré-senté L’in du stri e du pesage en Russie .

Chaque Fédération a ensuite présenté la situation del’industrie du pesage dans son pays, avec un tableaurécapitulatif détaillant la production d’instruments depesage en Europe et montrant une croissance généralede la production par rapport à 2000 avec l’arrivée del’Euro qui a nécessité un renouvellement des balancespoids-prix dans le domaine du commerce et de la grandedistribution.

La partie statutaire s’est déroulée l’après-midi avec leprogramme habituel suivant:

Les rapports d’activité de chaque Groupe de Travail:

Le Groupe Métrologi e Légale qui poursuit sa tâche

de propositions et d’examens: des documents de l’OIML, en particulier la

révision des Recommandations touchant lesinstruments de pesage à fonctionnement auto-matique;

des documents de la Commission Européenne,en particulier le projet de Directive sur lesInstruments de Mesure;

des documents du WELMEC (European Co- operati on i n L egal M etrology ), en particulier lesguides d’harmonisation.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Mr. Michel Turpain – Permanent Secretary CECIP

(Comité E uropéen des Con structeurs d’In struments de Pesage)Domaine d’Armainvilliers4 Impasse François Coli

F-77330 Ozoir La Ferrière, Fr ance

E-mail: [email protected]



38

update


The Mi n i s t ry o f Comm erce & In dust ry -

Di rectorate of Stan dar ds and Consum er

Prot ect ion - organi zed th e Fir st Mi ddle East

M etr o logy Conference and Exh ib i t i on from

6 to 8 May 2002 at the Gul f I n tern a t iona l

Convent ion Cent re, Gul f Hot el , Bahrai n.

Thi s ar t ic le summ ar i zes the Panel

Discusssions held on 8 May.

The Panel Discussion took place on 8 May 2002 at theGICC, Gulf Hotel. The members of the panel included:

- Dr. Stephen Carpenter- Dr. Hidetaka Imai- Dr. Eberhard Seiler- Mr. Vivian Linacre- Dr. Gerard Faber

- Col. Sameer A. Al Zayani

Col. Sameer opened the discussion by thanking thevisiting speakers and delegates for their active participa-tion in the Conference, and said that the ConferenceCommittee was very proud to host this first event inBahrain. He then invited the keynote speakers to expresstheir comments and suggestions:

Dr. Imai thanked the Ministry of Commerce andIndustry and members of the Organizing Committeefor their excellent organization of all the presenta-tions. He added that this should encourage regional

metrology laboratories to increase local awareness of laboratory services.

Dr. Seiler emphasized that trade with partners aroundthe world must employ systems that were in harmonywith international trends, including certificates thatwere on a par with those used internationally; hepraised the efforts made by Bahrain to be the first in

initiating this move. He recommended that the regionconsider joining various international organizationsin order to implement international recommenda-tions, since it was easier to look towards neighboringcountries to establish a system in a complimentaryway. He again emphasized that it was of importancefor the private sector to employ the services of locallaboratories to both save money and use availableresources, thus making Bahrain a focal point on theinternational scene.

On behalf of the British Weights and MeasuresAssociation (BWMA) Mr. Vivian Linacre thanked the

Ministry of Commerce and Industry and theConference Committee for the opportunity to attendthe event. He went on to voice two concerns and onerecommendation:

He had observed that there was a lack of educationamong both the public and clients as to thepotential of the science of metrology; he felt thatmany were unaware of the vast scope of thissubject. It was an immense but necessary task tocommunicate more about this subject to theoutside world in the future.

Secondly, he emphasized that the structures forthe administration and pursuit of metrologybetween officials and regulators were very sophis-ticated. There was a lack of representation at thetechnical/practical level, as suggested earlier.

Finally, he recommended that Bahrain should laythe foundation stone for the In ternat ional In st i tute of M etrology in order to instigate a future biennialconference on this subject. This Institute wouldnot only be an organization to implement stand-ards for the benefit of an organization but also asa general rule for all technicians and others tobecome direct members of this organization forthe overall benefit of all those involved.

Mr. Gerard Faber thanked the Committee and greatlyappreciated the presentations made by the Keynoteand other speakers, and made the following recom-mendations:

Start the preparations for the 2nd MetrologyConference as soon as possible.

Focus the next Conference on M iddle Eastpriorities, but in relation to other countries.

Publicize the next Conference widely, and ensure

that there is sufficient awareness as to its outcomeand the recommendations it makes, especially

CONFERENCE

The First Middle East

Metrology Conferenceand Exhibition

Bahrain

6–8 May 2002

MAJEED AL GASSAB, Technical Committee Chairman



39

update


of potential participants in Saudi Arabia working inmetrology and its applications had received the informa-tion too late.

3 Regional M etrology Comm ittee

A delegate from the United Arab Emirates suggestedthat the Technical Committees in GCC countries mightassist in the Conference budget by forming a RegionalMetrology Committee to address the immediate metro-logical requirements and needs and also future Confer-ences.

4 Technical papers

A delegate from Bahrain suggested that some of thetechnical papers could have been modified to providemore knowledge on how to ensure that metrology had

the greatest impact and the highest degree of influenceon industry.

5 Ways to im prove measurement standards

Dr. Bruno Vaucher asked that the needs of the region inhealth and trade measurements be established, and alsothe possibility of calibration conformance measure-ments with the involvement of the customer in theprocess, using existing facilities in improving measure-ment standards.

6 Regional calibration laboratory services

Regional calibration laboratory services should bedeveloped and promoted and an accreditation bodyestablished in the region, i.e. to identify a nationalcalibration laboratory by identifying national andregional standards requirements.

To conclude, two recommendations for the future werevoiced:

Dr. Vaucher congratulated the Ministry of Commerceand Industry for organizing this First Middle East M etrology Conference and Ex hi biti on and for giving

the participants an insight into the different fields andaspects of metrology. His views and suggestions as tothe next steps to be taken were:

To focus on the setting up regionally of a Metro-logy Institute/Organization with the necessaryinfrastructure in which Bahrain would be animportant partner and could take over the leader-ship in cooperation and coordination activities(since technical competence is built up bylaboratory work, skills and experience).

To begin by establishing the needs according to

the existing or planned industrial production andavailable services, as well as according to the local

ensuring that the latter are communicated to allgovernment officials and to both the public andprivate sectors.

Increase cooperation in the Middle East, and buildup strong ties for the next Conference.

The Middle East countries must play an importantrole in global metrology.

The key decision makers should invest in metro-logy applications on a regional basis and utilizeeach other’s capabil ities rather than come up withstand-alone solutions.

Dr. Stephen Carpenter praised the movement onmetrology which had started in Bahrain, paving theway towards successful future Conferences. Heemphasized the need for efforts to be incorporatedregionally within each member state, since the latter

have different needs and thus require expertise inregional areas.

He also supported the idea of a biennial Conferenceon Metrology and to encourage universities to sendmore students to attend the various presentations.

He encouraged the involvement of the technicalvendors and companies dealing with metrology toparticipate in - and indeed set up - more workshopsduring the Conference and exchange new ideas andtechnology.

Col. Sameer closed the session by thanking delegates

for their participation and requested them to spreadawareness of metrology so that more delegates couldparticipate in future Conferences. He also mentionedthat Mrs. Ghaïet-El-Mouna Annabi had recom-mended the implementation of a regional coordinat-ing office (or regional coordinator) for the OIML torepresent the Arab region. He then opened the floorfor discussion and delegate questions.

Delegate questi on s

1. The benefit of bein g an OI M L M ember State

or Correspondi ng M ember

Mr. Faber replied briefly to this question by saying thatin essence, a Member State has voting rights whereas aCorrespondin g M ember does not. Whilst he regretted nothaving enough time to go into more detail, individualdelegates were more than welcome to contact him formore detailed information. Based on this he once againencouraged regional representation at the OIML.

2 Conference publ ic i ty

Some delegates pointed out that there was a lack of

publicity and asked the organizers to ensure maximumpublicity for the next Conference, since a large number



40

update


Dr. Seiler made some recommendations for thedevelopment of metrology in Bahrain:

Set up a Metrology Committee under the chair-manship of the Ministry of Commerce and

Industry with representatives from the privatesector, other Ministries (e.g. Health, The Environ-ment and the Armed Forces) and to set up the taskto initiate, supervise and follow-up on the neces-sary activities.

Carry out a “Needs assessment“ and a survey onexisting metrology laboratories in the country.

Draw up a master plan for the development of metrology.

Increase contacts/coordination with GSMO andother National Metrology Institutes and Organiza-tions across the world and make use of expert

knowledge

situation in trade, health services, environmentalprotection or other fields in which measurementsare needed.

To study the possibility of performing calibrations,

testing and conformity assessment in order toserve the local needs faster and in a less expensiveway than being dependent on geographicallydistant infrastructures, but also to considercarrying out these measurements for overseascustomers and to participate in the “Testing business ”.

To build up an accordingly decentralized butpractical infrastructure calling on the advice andsupport of experts having the overview, technicalexperience and competence in the corresponding

fields.

Introduction

The International Meeting on Metrologyand Quality was organized by Inmetroand was attended by 61 experts from 21European and American countries, inRio de J aneiro, Brazil.

The Symposium was opened by theMinister of Science and Technology andby the Head of Inmetro, Mr. ArmandoMariante. The President of Brazil andthe Minister of Development attendedthe official closing session. The Presid-ent of Brazil delivered a very impres-sive speech on the role of Inmetro andthe importance of Metrology andQuality for the sustained development

of Brazil.

The Symposium was attended by some

thousand participants, and 136 parallel

sessions were organized on the follow-

ing themes :

a) Metrology

b) TBT Agreement

c) Conformity Assessment

d) Accreditation

The Legal Metrology Seminar

The program of Legal Metrology shareda wide variety of information concern-

ing three importants sub-themes:

• Software applied to measuring;

• Ways of performing metrologicalcontrol; and

• Measurement in custody transfer-ence and legal measurement of

petroleum products.

Conclusion

The meeting was an important forumfor discussions on Metrology andQuality and represented a positivecontribution to develop an integratedview on Metrology and Quality,fostering the cooperation between thesetwo key issues in modern trade and

industry.

I N M E T R O

INMETRO

International Meeting on Metrology and Quality

Tools for Competitivity

9–12 April 2002, Rio de Janeiro

SymposiumReport

by Roberto L ui zde Lima Gu im arães,

INMETRO



Introduction This seminar was a follow-up to the workshop held inOuagadougou, Burkina Faso in December 2001. It wasorganised by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt(PTB), the West African Economic and Monetary Union(UEMOA) and the Ivory Coast National Laboratory of Testing, Quality, Metrology and Analysis (LANE MA)with support from the local office of the GermanDevelopment Cooperation (GTZ). It took place at theoffices of the International Labour Organization inAbidjan, Ivory Coast and was part of the regional project“Encouragement of metrology and testing systems in

West African Countries” financed by the GermanFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ). This project aims to encouragemetrology and testing activities through regionalnetworking so as to contribute to the removal of technical barriers to trade in recipient countries.

The seminar The objective of the seminar was to provide anintroduction to legal metrology and to brief localdecision makers about the role of metrology foreconomic development and consumer protection.A total of 37 people participated in the seminar,

representing the administrations and industries of thefollowing countries in the region: Benin, Burkina Faso,Ivory Coast, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger,Senegal and Togo.

Opening ceremony The seminar began with a formal introductory session,attended by the Minister of Industry and Promotion of the Private Sector and the German Ambassador to theIvory Coast, during which the PTB project waspresented and an introduction to the OIML was given.

Training sessions

During the first two days, the following training sessionswere given:

Fundamentals of metrology(George G. Koré, LANEMA);

Economic and social tasks of legal metrology(Ian Dunmill, B IML);

Legal metrology legislation and national and

international structures (Ian Dunmill, B IML ); and The development of metrology in the European

Union – the example of Germany(Wolfgang Kieninger, Stutt gart Weights and

M easures Offi ce ). These sessions enabled an exchange of experience, andwere considered valuable by the majority of theparticipants.

Evaluation of legal metrology questionnaireUlrich Diekmann (PTB) presented the results of aquestionnaire on legal metrology, which had beencirculated following the last meeting in Burkina Faso. As

well as giving an idea of each country’s mass and volumecapabilities, the results of this questionnaire showedthat there was generally: A need for training and improvement of personnel in

conducting verifications, particularly for mass; A need for standards of mass and volume; A lack of premises and laboratories; and A need for the establishment of traceability.

Technical visitsOn the third day of the seminar, the participants wereable to visit some public and private metrology andtesting laboratories, in order to gain an appreciation of

the implementation of some of the principles alreadydiscussed.

Future actions The following future actions were agreed: A training seminar on mass will be held in Benin in

September 2002; A training seminar on volume will be held in

December 2002 in Guinea; A third workshop will be held in March 2003 in

Senegal to examine the progress made within theproject;

A questionnaire concerning industrial metrology willbe circulated;

A technical working group on mass will be estab-lished;

A technical working group or committee will beestablished to examine the harmonisation of legislation.

SEMINAR

Introduction to Metrology

Abidjan, Ivory Coast4–7 June 2002

DR. ULRICH DIEKMANN, PTBIAN DUNMILL, BIML

41

update


PB

Contact information:

Dr. Ulrich Diekmann, PTB Tel.: +49 531 592 8224 - Fax: +49 531 592 8225E-mail: [email protected]

Ian Dunmill, BIM L ([email protected])



The Internat ional M etrology Congress is organized every tw o years by the French College for M etrology and is a meeting place for the exchange of information between people involved in scienti f ic and industrial f ields through:

oral presentat ions and poster sessions

round tables the exhibi t ion of 45 stands

technical visits

The aims of the Congress are:

to bring forth and to highl ight new techniques of measurement and cal ibrat ion that have been or are being developed,

to present the evolut ion of metrology, and i ts impl icat ion in industry, research, environment and safety, economy and qual i ty, at the national and internationallevel.

The Congress currently gathers together m ore than 60 0 people from 3 0 di f ferent countries, and from every

circle concerned w i th m easurement:

metrolog ists from companies,

metrolog ists from cal ibrat ion, analysis and test ing laboratories,

manu facturers and users of metrological equipment,

qual i ty m anagers,

teachers and researchers.

Control of measurement, analysis and testing process

economical impacts:costs optimization

technical aspects:traceabi l ity - m easurement uncertaint ies - interlaboratory comp arisons - cal ibrat ion - veri f icat ion

quality insurance a spects:accredi tat ion - t raining and qual i f icat ion of staff - com petence - cert i f icat ion -organization of the metrology function

standardization aspects

legal metrology...

Economic f ields

agrofood - industry - biology - chemistry - electronics - energy - environm ent - h eal th - m echanical engineering industry - pharm acy - service providers - transport

Physical and chemical f ields

mass - force - f low - pressure - accelerat ion - d imensional - electrici ty - mag netism - t im e-frequency - temperature - h ygrometry - opt ics - radiometry -photo metry - reference material standards - ioniz ing radiat ion .. .

Papers are selected b y a Scienti f ic and Technical Comm ittee and may be p resented ei ther in French or in Engl ish. Simultaneou s translat ion w i l l be provided.

Contact information:

Sandrine Gazal - Maison de l ’Entreprise - 42 9 rue de l ’ Industrie - CS 700 03 - 340 78 M ontpel l ier Cedex 3 - FranceTel . + 33 4 6 7 06 2 0 36 - Fax + 33 4 6 7 06 2 0 35 - E-mai l sandr ine.gazal@wanadoo. f r

42

update




43

update


Dear Relati ons of NMi ,

Because of major chan ges expected in th e near fu tu re,

I strongly believe that a m eeti ng betw een m anu factur ers,

m etrol ogy institu tes and regul ators i s necessary an d

beneficial for all of u s. NM i is organizin g such a

m eetin g by means of a congress in the histori cal city

M aastricht , the Netherlan ds.

One of the major top ics wi l l be the introdu ct ion of the

Measur ing In strum ents Direct ive (M ID) in Eu rope,

wh ich is expected short ly. Questions li ke, how to m eet

the requi rement s of this Dir ective? H ow w il l self-

veri f icati on chan ge? Which new oppor tu ni t ies for test

laborator ies and m anufactur ers wi l l appear? wi l l be

deal t w i th . I n addi t ion , speakers from other countr ies or

regio ns are also in vit ed to pr esent n ew d evelopm ent s.

The int enti on i s to present a global view.

Thi s uni que congress, w ith the nam e ‘ M i lesto n es i n

M etr ol ogy ’ is not to be mi ssed. From M arch 30 thr ough

Apri l 2, 2003 part ic ipan ts from al l over the world w i l l

receive the latest in form ation on global, region al or

nati onal developm ents. Together w e wi l l bu ild a clear pictu re of the near fut ur e. It w il l be very effici ent for

everybody to upd ate the internat ion al vision on

m etrol ogy, int ern ation al m arket access and m arket

survei l lance in only tw o and h al f days. Al l th is

know ledge w il l be brought to you by in teracti ve

presentat ion s, discussions and wor kshops. Du ri ng the

wor kshops sm all group s wil l d iscuss cases wit h experts

from al l over t he world .

Besides the attracti ve scientif i c Programme, in t he

eveni ng Maastr icht gives you an excellent oppor tu ni ty

to recover fr om t he daytim e activi t ies, visit in g the

nu m erou s m arvelous restauran ts and sightseein g the

oldest rom an tow n of the Netherland s.

I look forw ard to meet in g you at Mi lestones in Metrology!

P r ogr a m m e

March 30, 2003 - Arrival

• Arrival of the congress participants during the afternoon /early evening

• Welcome gathering

March 31 - April 2, 2003 - Intr oduction to the MID

• Role of the OIML• Role of WELMEC• Role of Notified Bodies• Role of Manufacturer• How to comply with the MID?• Transition Period• Normative documents / harmonised standards• Test procedures

Global Market Access

• OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangements (MAA’s)• Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA’s) worldwide• Regional Legal requirements

Market Sur veillance

• Self-verification under the MID

Metrology College

• Available Training

Congress Language

The official conference language is English.

Congress Venue: Maastricht Exhibition and Congress Centre

Maastricht Exhibition and Congress Centre (MECC) near the city centre andclose to the hospital and University facilities. Hotels will be available within ashort walking distance from the MECC. If you would like further information,please fill in the registration form (see web site).

Maastricht, Congress Site

Situated close to the borders of Belgium and Germany, the Roman city of Maastricht has a cosmopolitan atmosphere. It is the capital of the province‘Limburg’ in the southernmost part of the Netherlands. To visit Maastricht is liketravelling through time. Walk on Roman cobble stones from 150 BC and visit thehalls where the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. Enjoy Maastricht’s skylineof church spires and towers and its tree-lined squares. But also be sure not tomiss ‘In den Ouden Vogelstruys’, the Netherlands’ oldest pub. We guarantee thatMaastricht and its people will delight and charm you.

Accommodation

Maastricht’s lodging facilities are varied and of outstanding quality. Best of all,almost all of the hotels are situated in the city centre. The Organizing Secretariathas reserved rooms in various hotel categories. Hotel rooms are guaranteed until

January 30, 2003.

http://www.conferenceagency.com/milestonesinmetrology/homepage.htm

NMi Certin B.V.

Pieter van BreugelManaging Director

M i l esto n es i n

M et r ol ogy



update

Committee Draftsrece ived by the BIML, 20 02 .05 .01 – 20 02 .07 .31

Revision of D 11: E 2 CD TC 5/ SC 1 The Netherlands

G eneral requirem ents for electronic m ea suring instrum ents

Revision of R 61-1 and R 61-2: E 1 CD TC 9/ SC 2 UK

Autom atic gravim etric filling instrum ents

Revision of D 1:

Law on M etrology E 1 CD TC 3 USA

21–22 October 2002 Delft (The N etherlands)

OIML TC 5/ SC 1 Electronic Instruments

Revision of OIML D11

The O IM L is plea sed to w elcome

the follow ing new

CIM L M em b er

Republic of KoreaMr. Lee, Yeon-Jae

O IM L M eeting

www.oiml .orgStay informed

In the January 2003 Edition:

Full accounts of the

oiml bulletin october 2002

Documents