oiml bulletin jan 2001

8/12/2019 Oiml Bulletin Jan 2001

1/87

which is concise in format but gigantic in its applicationalscope. His experience and help in securing its implementa-tion will most surely be appreciated.

The third change has already begun; in fact one couldcall it more of an evolution or a tendency, and a necessaryone at that. Regionalization of legal metrology will beincreasingly relevant to the activities of the Organizationand its Members. Most OIML Members already belong toone or more regional organizations, which gives them aneven broader outlook on legal metrology when consideredin conjunction with the OIMLs own international stance;this option is open to all since membership of the OIML isnot a prerequisite for belonging to an RLMO, though onemay lead to the other. As if further proof were needed,WELMEC (already ten years old), APLMF (six years old)and SADCMEL (already three years old) are going fromstrength to strength; SIM and COOMET are developingtheir legal metrology programs and brand new RLMOs areseeing the day: the IOLMF, and more recently the Euro-Mediterranean Forum (ELMLF), which is already in the(positive) situation of having too many items on its Londonmeeting agenda to discuss in just one half-day session!Proof that this is the right direction to be taking.

Lastly, and this too is an ongoing change, OIMLMembership is changing: we regularly welcome newMember States and Corresponding Members, and withinthese countries the appointed national representatives

frequently change too, leading to a wider diversity of ideasand fresh strategic analysis of legal metrology situations.The BIML and its Staff take this opportunity to wish all

OIML Members and Readers of the Bulletin a happy andprosperous New Year, and look forward to another fruitfulyear of Change.

And so we arrive at the end of the year 2000, anotherfull year for the OIML and its Members. As far as theBIML is concerned much has been achieved, as is

witnessed by the Report on BIML Activities(see page 88).Nearly 1000 printed pages were produced, and the vastmajority of what we set out to publish last year has beenprinted - despite the various hurdles that had to be over-come along the way.

The year culminated in the highly successful LondonMeetings, full accounts of which are published in Englishand in French in this edition. We decided to devote as muchspace as possible to this key event and go into rather moredetail than perhaps in previous years so that Members of the Organization and all those involved with it are fullyaware not only of the progress that is being made, but alsoof the many changes that are taking place.

And changes there are. As Knut Birkeland so wisely saidat Seoul, Dont be afraid of change, be scared to death of not changing.

Firstly, the Presidential Council has been reconstituted;the updated membership of the Council, whose role it is toadvise the Organizations President on key decisions thathave to be made, is printed on the inside front cover.

Secondly, the BIML is pleased to offer a very warmwelcome to Jean-Franois Magana, BIML AppointedDirector, who joins the Bureau on January 2. For a numberof months Bernard Athan and Jean-Franois Magana will

work side by side establishing strategy, managing the hand-over and ensuring that the elements of the19992002 ActionPlan are successfully transformed into day-to-day actions.Following this period, Bernard Athan will remain with theBIML for a further year or so as Consultant; his work duringthis period will hinge around this Action Plan, a document

Editorial

Y2K + 1 ... Changes lie ahead

Chris Pulham - Editor, BIML


2/87

Abstract

The most important actions required to ensure the correctindication of measuring instruments are:

in industrial metrology, regular calibration of the meas-uring instruments according to the implemented quality systems; andin legal metrology, periodic verification or conformitytesting of the instruments according to legal regula-tions.

Both actions are strongly inter-related and are pre- dominantly based on the same measuring procedures. Historically, however, these actions have been established with separate rules, metrological infrastructures and activities.

This paper, therefore, addresses the differences, commonbases and the relationship between calibration and verification. In particular, the relationships between legally prescribed error limits and uncertainty and the uncer-tainty contribution of verified measuring instruments are discussed.

Introduction

The correctness of measurements and measuring instru-ments is one of the most important prerequisites for theassurance of the quality and quantity of products and

services, and the accuracy of the instruments must beconsistent with their intended use.

In compliance with the ISO 9000 standard series andthe ISO/IEC 17025 standard, traceability of measuringand test equipment to the realization of SI units must beguaranteed by an unbroken chain of comparison meas-urements to allow the necessary statements about theirmetrological quality. The most important actions toensure the correct indication of measuring instrumentsare:

in industrial metrology: regular calibration of themeasuring instruments according to the implementedquality systems; andin legal metrology: periodic verification or con-formity testing of the measuring instruments accord-ing to legal regulations.

Both actions are closely related and are mostly basedon the same measuring procedures.

Historically, however, these actions have been estab-lished with separate rules and metrological infra-structures and activities. Verification has become aprincipal part of legal metrology systems and calibrationis widely used in quality assurance and industrialmetrology - accreditation bodies prefer calibration as aprimary action to provide proof of the correctness of theindication of measuring instruments.

As a result, today it must be acknowledged that thereis a lack of reciprocal understanding of the identicalmetrological nature of these activities between the dif-ferent communities of users. In particular, their specificconcerns are insufficiently understood, and there iswidespread incomprehension concerning the relation-ship of error limits and uncertainty of measurement. Forinstance, the use of legally verified instruments withinthe framework of quality management sometimespresents problems since only the MPEs for theinstruments are provided, without the measurementuncertainties being explicitly given.

1 Calibration

Usually, calibration is carried out in order to provide aquantitative statement about the correctness of themeasurement results of a measuring instrument. Foreconomic reasons, laboratories strive for broad recog-nition of their calibration and measurement results.Confidence in results, therefore, is achieved throughboth establishing the traceability and providing the un-certainty of the measurement results.

According to the VIM [1], calibration may be definedas a set of operations that establish, under specified conditions, the relationship between values of quantities

indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a material measure or a

5O I M L B U L L E T I N VO L U M E X L I I NU M B E R 1 J A N U A RY2 0 0 1

t e c h n i q u e

Calibration and verification:Two procedures havingcomparable objectivesand resultsK LAUS-DIETER SOMMER , Landesamt fr Mess-und Eichwesen Thringen (LMET), GermanySAMUELE. CHAPPELL, Consultant, Formerly of theNational Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST), USAMANFRED K OCHSIEK , Physikalisch-TechnischeBundesanstalt (PTB), Germany


3/87

reference material, and the corresponding values realizedby standards. This means that the calibration showshow the nominal value of a material or the indication of an instrument relates to the conventional true values of the measurand. The conventional true value is realizedby a traceable reference standard [1]. According to thisdefinition, calibration does not necessarily contain anyactions of adjustment or maintenance of the instrumentto be calibrated.

Figures 1 and 2 show examples of calibration by

means of the comparison method, i.e. by comparison of the indication of the instrument under test, and thecorresponding indication of appropriate standardsrespectively.

Calibration certificates for measuring instrumentsgive the measurement deviation, or correction, and theuncertainty of measurement. Only this combinationcharacterizes the quality of the relation of the meas-urement result to the appropriate (SI) unit. Figure 3illustrates the meaning of a (single) calibration result asit is typically presented.

The uncertainty of measurement is a parameter,

associated with the result of measurement, that charac-terizes the (possible) dispersion of the values that could

6 O I M L B U L L E T I N VO L U M E X L I I NU M B E R 1 J A N U A RY 2 0 0 1

t e c h n i q u e

Fig. 1 Examples of calibration by comparison method.

a: hydrometer calibration in a liquid bathb: thermometer calibration in a liquid bath (withoutthermostatting equipment)

c: block diagram of the calibration procedures

tbath, 0 : liquid temperature bath, 0 : liquid density tbath : temperature difference in liquid bath : density difference in liquidtT, tS : determing temperatures for the instrument

tested and the standard T, S : determining densities for the instrument

tested and the standard I T, I S : indications

Fig. 3 Meaning of a (single) calibration result as typicallypresented.

E : measurement deviationE[ E] : best estimate of the measurement deviation xIND : indication of the instrument tested xS : conventional true valueu( E) : standard uncertainty that may be associated

with the measurement deviationu( xIND) : standard uncertainty that may be associated

with the value xINDu( xS) : standard uncertainty that may be associated

with the value xS

Fig. 2 Example of voltage calibration of a multimeter bycomparison of the voltage provided by a calibrator,and the corresponding indication of the multimeter.

Photo of the calibration setup and block diagram of thecalibration procedure.

V C : voltage provided by the calibrator

V T : input voltage of the instrument tested

V : unknown voltage deviation due toimperfections in the measuring procedure

I C, I T : indications

reasonably be attributed to the measurand [1]. In otherwords, uncertainty is a measure of the incompletenessof knowledge about the measurand. It is determined

according to unified rules [2, 3] and is usually stated fora coverage probability of 95 %. Its value, together with


4/87

the determined measurement error, is valid at themoment of calibration and under the relevant cali-bration conditions.

If a recently calibrated measuring instrument is usedunder the same conditions as during the calibration, themeasurand Y may be reduced to the following parts:

Y = X S + X (1)

where X S represents the corrected indication of thecalibrated instrument. X may be the combination of allother (unknown) measurement deviations due to imper-fections in the measuring procedure. Thus, it followsthat the associated standard uncertainty of the measure-ment carried out by means of a calibrated instrument is:

u2( y) = u2( xs) + u2( x) (2)

This means that the calibration uncertainty u ( xs) of a newly calibrated instrument enters directly into thetotal uncertainty of the measurement u ( y) as an (inde-pendent) contribution.

When the calibrated instrument is used in a differentenvironment, the measurement uncertainty determinedby the calibration laboratory will often be exceeded if the instrument is susceptible to environmental influ-ences. A problem can also arise if the instruments per-formance is degraded after prolonged use.

Furthermore, the stated uncertainty of measurementcan be considered as being related to national standardsonly for certificates issued by laboratories that havedemonstrated their competence beyond reasonabledoubt. Such laboratories are normally well recognizedby their customers. In other cases, for example, whenworking standard calibration certificates are used,

reference to the national standards cannot be taken forgranted and the user must be satisfied as to the propertraceability - or take other actions.

Sometimes, calibration certificates give a conformitystatement, i.e. a statement of compliance with givenspecifications or requirements. In these cases, accordingto the EA document EA-3/02 [4], the obtained measure-ment result, extended by the associated uncertainty,must not exceed the specified tolerance or limit.Figure 4 illustrates this approach.

2 Verification and error limitsin legal metrology

2.1 Verification

Verification of the conformity of measuring instrumentsis a method of testing covered by legal regulations. It isa part of a process of legal metrological control that inmany economies requires type evaluation and approval


t e c h n i q u e

Fig. 4 Relationship between maximum permissible errors andmeasurement uncertainty upon conformity evaluation incalibration [4] and testing of working standards.

xS : conventional true value y : best estimate of the measurement deviation, E MPE : lower maximum permissible error MPE+ : upper maximum permissible error

I ( y) : acceptance interval with respect to themeasurement deviation, y

Fig. 5 Typical test sequence over the lifetime of a measuringinstrument that is subjected to legal regulations

Fig. 6 Elements of verification [5]


5/87

of some models of instruments subject to legal regula-tions as a first step. Figure 5 shows the typical testsequence over the lifetime of a measuring instrumentsubject to legal regulations.

Type evaluation is usually more stringent than verifi-cation. It includes testing the instruments performancewhen subjected to environmental influence factors inorder to determine whether the specified error limits forthe instrument at rated or foreseeable in situ operatingconditions are met [5].

The basic elements of verification are [5]:

qualitative tests, e.g. for the state of the instrument(which is essentially an inspection); andquantitative metrological tests.

The aim of the quantitative metrological tests is todetermine the errors with the associated uncertainty of measurement (cf. 1) at prescribed testing values. Thesetests are carried out according to well-established andharmonized testing procedures [5].

Following the definition of calibration, as given in 1,the quantitative metrological tests may be considered acalibration. This means that an instruments assuranceof metrological conformity involves both verificationand calibration, and the measuring equipment necessaryto determine conformity during verification might bethe same as that used for calibration, e.g. as shown inFigs. 1 and 2.

The results of the verification tests are then evalu-ated to ensure that the legal requirements are being met(see 2.2). Provided that this assessment of conformityleads to the instrument being accepted, a verification

mark should be fixed to it and a verification certificatemay be issued. Figure 6 illustrates these elements of verification.

According to the above definitions and explanations,Table 1 compares the primary goals and the actions of calibration and verification.

2.2 Maximum permissible errors on verificationand in service

In many economies with developed legal metrologysystems, two kinds of error limits have been defined:

the maximum permissible errors (MPEs) on verifica-tion; andthe maximum permissible errors (MPEs) in service.

The latter is normally twice the first. MPEs on verifi-cation equal MPEs on testing that are valid at the timeof verification. For the measuring instrument user, theMPEs in service are the error limits that are legallyrelevant.

This approach is explained and illustrated in detailin 4.3 of [5].


t e c h n i q u e

Table 1 Comparison of the primary goals and of the actions in calibration and verification

Calibration

Determination of the relationship

between the measured values andthe corresponding values realizedby standards:- under defined conditions- at a specified date and time

Statement of both the deviation,or correction, and the uncertainty of measurementIssuing of a calibration certificate

Verification

Examination of conformity of

measuring instruments with legalrequirements- qualitative tests- maximum permissible errors

(mpes)

Marking of the instrument tested(passport function)Issuing of a verification certificateas required or requested

Fig. 7 Specification and measurement uncertainty(according to ISO 14253-1 [6]).

MPE

: lower maximum permissible error MPE+ : upper maximum permissible error


6/87

The values of the error limits are related to theintended use of the respective kind of instrument anddetermined by the state of the art of measurementtechnology.

3 Relationship between legally prescribederror limits and uncertainty

3.1 General

If a measuring instrument is tested for conformity witha given specification or with a requirement with regardto the error limits, this test consists of comparisons of measurements with those resulting from use of a

physical standard or calibrated standard instrument.The uncertainty of measurement inherent in themeasurement process then inevitably leads to an un-

certainty of decision of conformity. Figure 7 (taken fromthe standard ISO 14253-1) [6] makes this problem quiteclear: between the conformance zones and the upperand lower non-conformance zones there is in each casean uncertainty zone whose width corresponds approx-imately to twice the expanded uncertainty of measure-ment at the 95 % probability level. The uncertaintycomprises contributions of the standard(s) used and theinstrument under test as well as contributions that arerelated to the measuring procedure and to the in-complete knowledge about the existing environmentalconditions (cf. 3).

Because of the uncertainty of measurement, meas-urement results affected by measurement deviationslying within the range of the uncertainty zones cannotdefinitely be regarded as being, or not being, in con-formity with the given tolerance requirement.

3.2 Relationship upon verification

In practice, measuring instruments are considered tocomply with the legal requirements for error limits if:

the absolute value of the measurement deviations issmaller than or equal to the absolute value of thelegally prescribed MPEs on verification when the testis performed under prescribed test conditions; andthe expanded uncertainty of measurement of theprevious quantitative metrological test (cf. 2.1), for acoverage probability of 95 %, is small compared withthe legally prescribed error limits.

The expanded measurement uncertainty at the 95 %probability level,U 0.95, is usually considered to be smallenough if the following relationship is fulfilled:

U 0.95 13

MPEV (3)

where MPEV is the absolute value of the MPE on verifi-cation. U max is, therefore, the maximum acceptable value of the expanded measurement uncertainty of thequantitative test.

The criteria for the assessment of compliance areillustrated in Fig. 8 (cf.[5]): cases a, b, c and d complywith the requirements of the verification regulations,whereas cases e and f will be rejected. Values in all cases,including their uncertainty of measurement, lie withinthe tolerances fixed by the MPEs in service.

Consequently, the MPE on verification of a newly

verified measuring instrument will in the worst case beexceeded by 33 %. However, as the legally prescribed


t e c h n i q u e

Fig. 8 Illustration of the criteria for the assessment of compliance in legal metrology and of the bandwidthof measurement deviations I ( E) of verified instrumentsthat could be expected when taking the uncertaintyU max into account.

MPEV : absolute value of the maximum permissibleerror on verification

MPEV

: lower maximum permissible error on verification

MPEV + : upper maximum permissible error on verification

MPES : lower maximum permissible error in service MPES+ : upper maximum permissible error in serviceU max : upper permissible limit of the expanded

uncertainty of measurement accordingto equation (3)

y : best estimate of measurement deviation, E I ( y) : acceptance interval with respect to the

measurement deviation, y1) Due to unavoidable measurement uncertainties from the quantitative t ests (cf.

Fig. 6), the legally prescribed error limits MPEV and MPEV + can be exceededby the value of U max without being recognized. Therefore, an interval I ( E) may

be defined that characterizes the possible bandwidth of measurement errorswhen using verified instruments.


7/87

MPEs in service are valid for the instrument users, thereis, therefore, negligible risk in the sense that nomeasured value under verification - even if the measure-ment uncertainty is taken into account - will be outsidethis tolerance band.

So far, the MPEs on verification may be seen assupporting the conclusion that an instrument would bein conformity with required MPEs in service (MPES)taking into consideration the above-mentioned influ-ences.

The advantages of this verification system are that itis practical in terms of legal enforcement, and - due tothe widened tolerance band in service [MPES ; MPES+]- it is potentially tolerant of external influences and of drifts in indication over the legally fixed validity periods.Verification validity only expires early in cases of un-authorized manipulations and damage that could

reduce the accuracy of the instrument.

3.3 Relationship upon testing of working standards

In legal metrology, working standards are the standardsthat are used routinely to verify measuring instruments.In several economies, some of the working standardsused in legal metrology must be tested or verifiedaccording to special regulations. The MPEs of suchworking standards depend on their intended use. In

general, they should be significantly lower than theexpanded uncertainties that are required by equation(3).

Usually, a working standard, e.g. mass (weight) [7], isconsidered to comply with the respective requirementsfor legal error limits if the difference between its indica-tion, or measured value, and the corresponding valuerealized by a reference standard is equal to or less thanthe difference between the prescribed error limits,MPEws, and the expanded uncertainty of measurement,U 0.95:

| I ws xs| MPEws U 0.95 (4)

where:

I ws = the indication of the working standard under test;and

xs = the value provided by a reference standard.

In practice, this means that with respect to measure-ment deviations, a tolerance band is defined that issignificantly reduced when compared with the rangebetween the legally prescribed error limits[MPEws; MPEws+] (see Fig. 4). The magnitude of thistolerance band may be described by the interval[MPEws + U ; MPEws+ U ].

This approach is consistent with the prescribed pro-cedures for statements of conformity on calibrationcertificates (cf. 1 and [4]).

4 Uncertainty contribution of verifiedinstruments

In practice, it is often necessary or desirable to deter-mine the uncertainty of measurements that are carriedout by means of legally verified measuring instruments.If only the positive statement of conformity with thelegal requirements is known, for example in the case of verified instruments without a certificate, the uncer-tainty of measurements for such instruments can bederived only from the information available about theprescribed error limits (on verification and in service)and about the related uncertainty budgets according tothe requirements established in 2.2 and 3.2.

On the assumption that no further information isavailable, according to the principle of maximumentropy, the following treatment is justified:

The range of values between the MPEs on verificationcan be assumed to be equally probable.Due to uncertainty in measurement, the probabilitythat indications of verified instruments are actuallybeyond the acceptance limits of the respective verifi-

cation declines in proportion to the increase indistance from these limits. A trapezoidal probability


t e c h n i q u e

Fig. 9 Suggested probability distributions for evaluating thestandard uncertainty contribution of verified measuringinstruments.

a : immediately after verificationb : after prolonged use MPEV : absolute value of the maximum permissible

error on verification MPES : absolute value of the maximum permissible

error in service

xI,M : indication of the verified instrument when usingfor measurements


8/87

distribution according to Fig. 9 can, therefore, reflectadequately the probable dispersion of the deviation of verified measuring instruments.Immediately after verification, the indications of measuring instruments may exceed the MPEs on verification by the maximum value of the expandeduncertainty of measurements at most.After prolonged use and under varying environmentalconditions, it can be assumed that the expandedmeasurement uncertainty, compared with its initial value, may have increased significantly.

In particular, the following evaluation of the un-

certainty contribution of verified instruments seems tobe appropriate:

a) Immediately after verification, the trapezoidal prob-ability distribution of the errors according to plot (a)of Fig. 9 can be taken as a basis for the determinationof the uncertainty contribution of the instruments.The following may, therefore, be assumed for thisstandard uncertainty contribution uINSTR [2]:

uINSTR = a (1 + 2) / 6 0.7 MPEV (5)

where a = 1.33 MPEV and = 3 / 4.

MPEV is the absolute value of the MPEs on verifica-tion.

b) After prolonged use and under varying environ-mental conditions, it can be assumed that, in theworst case, the measurement error extended by themeasurement uncertainty will reach the values of theMPEs in service. The resulting trapezoidal distri-bution could more or less be represented by plot (b)of Fig. 9. In this case, the following may be assumedfor the standard uncertainty contribution [2]:

uINSTR = a (1 + 2) / 6 0.9 MPEV (6)

where:

a = 2

MPEV and = 1 / 2

5 System comparison

Table 2 shows a comparison between verification andcalibration, which is partially based on Volkmann [8].

In conclusion, verification offers assurance of correct

measurements by a measuring instrument according toits intended use especially for those instruments that


t e c h n i q u e

Table 2 System comparison of calibration and verification( MPEV - maximum permissible errors on verification, MPES- maximum permissible errors in service)

Characteristics Verification Calibration

Legal requirements

Guarantee of indications within MPE in servicerange during the validity period

Admissibility for use in the regulated area

Admissibility for verification directly or withtype approval if required

Within the period fixed for subsequent verification (as regards MPE in service)

By the verifying body

Regulated by the procedure

U 1/3 MPEV

Bases

Objective

Prerequisite

Validity of the results

Evaluation of the results

Traceability

Uncertainty of measurement

Technical rules, norms, demandsof customers

Relation between indication andconventional true value (at nominateddefined accuracy level)

Broad recognition of calibration results

Instrument should be able to becalibrated

At the moment of calibration underspecific calibration conditions

By the user of the measuringinstruments

Calibration laboratory to provideevidence

Depending on the technical competenceof the laboratory and of the instrumentperformance


9/87

require type evaluation and approval. It is based ontechnical procedures equivalent to those used in cali-bration and provides confidence in the correctness of indications of verified instruments although no expertknowledge by the instruments user is required.Verification, therefore, may be considered a strong toolin both legal metrology and quality assurance whenlarge numbers of measuring instruments are involved.In particular, it excels as a simple means by whichenforcement can be realized, and because the user isonly affected by the MPEs in service, it provides a highdegree of confidence over a long time period.


t e c h n i q u e

MANFRED K OCHSIEK

SAMCHAPPELL

K LAUS-DIETER SOMMER

One disadvantage in verification is that the influenceof uncertainty on a decision of conformity of a measur-ing instrument to specific requirements is not com-pletely clear.

In comparison, traditional calibration is consideredan important basic procedure for legal metrologyactivities and also for fundamental measurementapplications in scientific and industrial metrology. It ispractically not limited as far as the measurement task isconcerned, but does require sound expert knowledge onthe part of the instruments user in carrying out andevaluating measurements.

References

[1] International Vocabulary of Basic and General Termsin Metrology: BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP,OIML, 1993

[2] Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measure-ment (Corrected and reprinted 1995): BIPM, IEC,IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML, page 101

[3] EA-4/02, Expression of the Uncertainty of Measure-ment in Calibration, Ed. 1: European Cooperationfor Accreditation (EA), April 1997 (previously EAL-R2)

[4] EA-3/02,The Expression of Uncertainty in Quanti-tative Testing, Ed. 1: European Cooperation forAccreditation (EA), August 1996 (previously EAL-G23)

[5] Schulz, W.; Sommer, K.-D.:Uncertainty of Measure-ment and Error Limits in Legal Metrology: OIMLBulletin, October 1999, pp. 515

[6] Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) Inspection by measurement of workpieces andmeasuring equipment, Part 1: Decision rules for proving conformance or nonconformance with

specification, ISO 142531: 1998, InternationalOrganization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva,1998

[7] OIML R 111 (1994): Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2,M1, M2, M3

[8] Volkmann, Chr.: Messgerte in der Qualitts-sicherung geeicht oder kalibriert. AWA-PTB-Gesprch 1997, Braunschweig 1997

[9] Klaus Weise, Wolfgang Wger: Messunsicherheitund Messdatenauswertung. Verlag Weinheim, New

York, Chichester, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-VCH,1999


10/87

Introduction

This paper describes the attempt, on the basis of theimminent changes in the Italian provisions concerningthe periodic inspection of weighing and measuringdevices, to introduce a continuous monitoring system of devices located in the Legal Metrological Authorities(LMA) jurisdictions.

The objectives the authors aim to achieve are to:optimize the resources allocated to LMAs;increase inspectors efficiency and productivity;increase the effectiveness of administrative andenforcement actions;better protect honest businesses; andbetter protect consumers.

In order to achieve satisfactory levels of effective-ness, it became clear that technical and logistics tasks,such as monitoring weighing and measuring devices ona continuous basis (targeting) [1], should not be dis-sociated from a number of other supporting activities,such as:

training and refresher courses for inspectors;promotion of programs and media contacts;office automation; andtechnological support.

The experimental Targeting Plan is presentlyrestricted to two typical types of weighing and meas-uring devices subject to legal metrology control:

small and medium capacity nonautomatic weighinginstruments (NAWI); and vehicle fuel dispensers.

Definitions

For a better understanding of what follows, some basicdefinitions are given:

Compliance:Status of an instrument meeting the requirementsset out by regulations.

Non-compliance:Status other than that of compliance.

History of good or poor compliance:Control to verify whether or not the characteristicsof compliance are preserved.

Excellent user:User with a good compliance history.

Poor user :User with a poor compliance history.

Standard inspection frequency:Inspection performed according to the law by aWeights and Measures Department, on the basis of types of device. Inspections are to be performedduring normal office hours.

Increased inspection frequency[2]:Inspection performed at more frequent intervalsthan standard inspection, usually to follow up casesof previous non-compliance.

Users database:Computerized list of all devices in the area, whichenables the LMA to retrieve device users by means of several search keys.

Targeting

The targeting procedure consists of monitoring deviceson a continuous basis through inspection; the aim is topenalize users who make use of devices with a poorcompliance history. This should allow for humanresources to be optimized and result in a reduction inthe effective rate of non-compliance.

The device users are divided into two groups: theexcellent and the poor. The first category is furthersub-divided on the basis of the number of instrumentsused in the business.

The inspection frequency is variable and is based onthe different histories of compliance and other factorsrelated to the instruments such as manufacturer, type,capacity, instructions for use, environmental conditions,etc.:

the excellent users devices are subjected to standardinspection frequency;


e v o l u t i o n s

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

A proposal for targeting

weighing and measuringdevices to optimize localmetrology authoritiesresourcesGIUSEPPE ARDIMENTOR OSARIOGIOVANNIGAUDIOSISILVANA IOVIENO

Weights & Measures Officers, Camera diCommercio Industria ed Artigianato di Napoli,

Ufficio Metrico, Naples, Italy


11/87

the poor users devices are (conversely) subjected toan increasedinspection frequency. Normally, users areremoved from this list only after successfully passingtwo consecutive inspections.

The need arises, for users that remain on the poorlist or those that systematically re-enter it, to thoroughlyinvestigate the reasons behind any case of non-compliance, in order to take appropriate action toreduce or prevent such factors from reocurring.

For those excellent users having many instru-ments, a two-stage inspection is carried out.

The first stage consists of an inspection of a randomsample of the instruments used, preceded by a visualinspection of all the devices to verify the fulfillment of the formal requirements. For example, for a service withmore than five fuel dispensers or for points of sale usingnonautomatic weighing instruments with more than tendevices, the inspector respectively tests only five fueldispensers or ten weighing instruments.

The second stage consists of an inspection of all thedevices used. However, if the first stage was successfulthen it is not necessary to proceed to stage two, whichshall only be performed if either of the followingconditions occur:a) one device is found to be outside the maximum

permissible errors;or

b) the mean of the calibration errors is less than the

acceptance criterion.Targeting procedures and acceptance methods are

described in Annexes 1 and 2.

Training

Training and refresher courses for inspectors requireconsiderable local authority investment, but distinctadvantages do result from such investment: bettertrained inspectors perform higher quality inspections,

which result in a reduction in the number of errors inthe field and reduced user complaints.

Training also increases inspector productivity, thusreducing the likelihood of accidents at work, gives morecredibility and hence increases professionalism.

Training would be supplemented with formalcourses lasting at least ten days a year, duly recognizedon a national scale by means of a certification method[3].

On the job training is no substitute for formaltraining, but it does complement and reinforce formaltraining. Train the trainer courses will be needed

which allow know-how to be spread among theinspectors.

Promotion programs and media contacts

The promotion programs will be directed at improving voluntary compliance of users through industry trainingand raising consumer awareness by a variety of educational initiatives:

lectures promoting the programs to businesses;advertising campaigns aimed at consumers anddirected towards the concept of enlightenedpurchase of goods;educational competitions for which a prize isawarded to the best ideas in the field of consumerprotection;creation of web pages; and

instigation of toll-free phone numbers for consumercomplaints.

Office computerization

To ensure efficient progress it is absolutely necessary toset up a database of users so that every element thatcould contribute to making the administrative actionmore effective can be easily identified. Examples of forms that could serve as database records are given inAnnex 3.

The use of data processing media will helpparticularly in implementing targeted inspections: thereports will identify which users have to be inspected onthe basis of the last inspection date and based oncompliance history.

The reports will periodically take a photograph of targeting activity, identifying both the percentage of

inspected locations and the impact on the territory.In Italy, the InfoCamere Eureka Plan(in its develop-ment phase) attempts to provide a medium suitable forthe needs of a modern of legal metrology service; itwould be advantageous to develop it as a global tool forall the fields of competence of service.

This plan should then provide for a section dedicatedto the traceability of working standards to nationalprototypes of weights and measures units.

For an efficient implementation of such targetingstrategies, it could be opportune to develop an ad hocdatabase so as to render inspection easier in the device

field as well as the preservation of data concerning theinspection [4].


e v o l u t i o n s


12/87

Technological facilities

The use of new technologies, applied to the inspections,results in noticeable advantages both in the field of jobsafety and in the effectiveness and efficiency of inspectors.

The most obvious advantage stemming from theutilization of new technologies is related to the reduc-tion in the time required to carry out inspections, whichhas a beneficial effect on the costs that the sellers passon to consumers.

It would be sensible to utilize a fleet of motor vehicles to perform verifications, but such a fleet wouldhave to be equipped with working standards to optimizethe verification activity.

Authors comments

The principles explained should be taken as beingsubjective and open to suggestions for changes in linewith the actual conditions in which each individualmetrological service works.

It is a subjective management choice to implement apolicy in order to achieve best results in the field; of particular importance is the division of non- complianceinto classes showing defects defined as fatal and thosedefined as tolerable.

It is managements responsibility to set out the userclassification methods based on the number of reverifications of instruments between two successiveperiodic verifications (for example an excessive numberof reverifications due to fatal defects could trulyindicate poor instrument performance, or worse still,could be a sign of intentional tampering with theinstrument).

In order to ensure better optimization of humanresources, it could furthermore be appropriate toseparate the area into territorial jurisdictions for

different inspectors and also fix the relevant fields of competence.In summing up, this proposal is an attempt to

introduce a notion of statistical thinking into the fieldof legal metrology, traditionally resistant to this idea.

Annex 1

In order to better understand what follows, thedefinitions below are used:

b Category: the whole set of excellent users who use

not more than 10 weighing devices (n 10) or notmore than 5 fuel dispensing devices (n 5)

B Category: the whole set of excellent users who usemore than 10 weighing devices (n > 10) or more

than 5 fuel dispensing devices (n > 5)C Category: the whole set of non-conforming users

V: Inspection phase at which only formal require-ments are evaluated

E: Inspection phase at which metrologically relevantcharacteristics (accuracy, repeatability, etc.) areevaluated

E%: Inspection phase at which only a sample of theusers device population is tested with respect tometrologically relevant characteristics

M: Evaluation of the above-mentioned sample bymeans of the acceptance criteria (depicted inAnnex 2)

The inspection starts by considering the userscompliance record. To achieve compliance recordswhich effectively depict the real operating conditions, itis necessary, initially, to inspect all the devices byconsidering both the formal and the metrologicallyrelevant requirements. So the whole user population willbe classified in one of the three categories b, B orC.

(1) b Category users shall be submitted to 100 %device inspections: in the case of a positive result forevery device relating to both V and E phases, a usershall still be considered as an excellent user;otherwise he or she shall be considered as a non-conforming user (see decisional flow chart b).

(2) B Category users shall be submitted to reduceddevice inspections: a sample shall be randomlydrawn from the device population and inspected. If a user passes the V, E% and M steps, he or she shallbe considered as an excellent user; if he or she failsthe M step, then he or she shall be submitted to a100 % device inspection as described in (1) above; if he or she fails the V or E steps, then he or she shallbe considered as a non-conforming user (see deci-sional flow chart B).

(3) C Category users shall always be submitted to100 % device inspection. In the case of a positiveresult in respect of both the V and E steps, the usershall be considered as being non-conforming exceptwhen he or she shall be upgraded to the B or bCategory according to the number of devices he orshe uses. In the case of a negative result, the user

shall still be considered as a non-conforming one(see decisional flow chart C).


e v o l u t i o n s


13/87


e v o l u t i o n s

b

Cno

no

After repair and periodic verificationfor b Category

After periodic verification for B Category

Decisional flow charts

After repair verification for B Category

yes

yes

yes

B

C

no

nono

no

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

After repair verification for C Category

C

no

no

yes

yes

yes

E%

V

M E

V

E

B

Cno

no

yes

yes

yes

V

E

After periodic verification for C Category

C

B or b

no

y e s ,

t h e

f i r s

t t i m e

yes, the second consecutive time

yes

yes

V

E

V

E


14/87

After-repair verification targeting procedure

With regard to after-repair verification, an inspection of the devices for which a repair was needed is carried out.

Apart from the users conformance history, steps Vand E shall be carried out in succession; in the case of apositive result in both these steps, a user shall remain inthe original category (see the decisional chart), but inthe case of a negative result for one or more of the twosteps, the user shall be deemed to be non-conforming.

Human resources allocation

The time elapsed between two successive inspections(T) is linked to the users device compliance history:b and B Category users shall be inspected at thenormal inspection frequency, conversely C Categoryusers shall be inspected at the increased frequency.

In order to better allocate the human resourcesavailable within several jurisdictions, when an after-repair inspection is needed in the time period between0.5 T and T, an overall inspection shall be carried out asa periodic inspection for every device at the userslocation by way of exception to the terms of theinspection validity period.

Annex 2

Two-stage inspection acceptance criteria

With regard to the acceptance variable criteria thefollowing definition is given:

Variable: ratio ( x) between the absolute error foundand the maximum permissible error (mpe):

x = (absolute error found)/ mpe.

A device population to be inspected shall be subjected to a statistical analysis by using a sampling planhaving the following property:

Property: a device population having 1 % of devicesbelow the mpe must have an acceptanceprobability of 95 %.

To perform the statistical analysis a working hypoth-esis has been considered as reported below:

Working hypothesis: the variable distribution is con-sidered as a normal distributionwith zero mean and such astandard deviation value that theabove-quoted definition of property is true.

Moreover, on the remaining points of the operativecurve (OC) which describes the sampling plan, thestandard deviation is deemed to be constant. Thereasoning behind this assumption is that usually theerror spread depends on the kind of devices to be veri-fied and thus the variance around the average error isgenerally known; conversely, the average error doesdepend on calibration operations which are being per-formed on the device population to be inspected. Thesituation is as defined in Fig. 1.

Weighing devices sampling plan

For weighing device populations having more than 10items, a sample of 10 from the whole population isdrawn.


e v o l u t i o n s

Fig. 1


15/87


e v o l u t i o n s

Annex 3


16/87

The mean variable value xm has to meet theacceptance criterion xm 0.224 and the OC relating tothis criterion is set out below:

Fuel dispensers sampling plan

With regard to fuel dispenser populations of more than5 items, a sample of 5 from the whole population isdrawn.

The average relative error value xm (expressed perthousand) has to meet the acceptance criterion

xm 0.63 (per thousand).

The OC relating to this criterion is set out below:

Notes:* AQL: Acceptable Quality Level (i.e. the percentage

of non-conforming devices in a batch)** Pa: Acceptance Probability of the batch under

inspection given the corresponding AQL valuein the table

References

[1] City of Seattle Consumer Affairs Unit: Weights andMeasures Inspection Plan (1997)

[2] NIST Handbook 130: Uniform laws and regula-tions in the areas of legal metrology and engine fuel

quality-examination procedure for price verifi-cation

[3] OIML D 14 (1989): Training of legal metrologypersonnel - Qualification - Training programs

[4] Jim Truex: Legal Metrology for the Americas Work-shop

[5] Leavenworth-Grant: Statistical quality control,McGraw-Hill

[6] NCWM Course 302: Retail motor-fuel dispensersand consoles


e v o l u t i o n s

SILVANA IOVIENO

GIUSEPPE ARDIMENTO

R OSARIOGIOVANNIGAUDIOSI

AQL* Pa

**

1 % 95 %5 % 31 %10 % 5 %25 % 0.02 %50 % 0 %........ ........

AQL* Pa**

1 % 95 %5 % 54 %10 % 24 %25 % 2 %50 % 0 %........ ........

The authors wish to thank Mr. Craig Leisy, Supervisor, Weights &Measures, Seattle Licenses and Consumer Affairs, who kindly gave

the authors permission to use the 1997 Seattle Weights & MeasuresPlan as inspiration for this article.


17/87

22

0000

L N D O NL N D O NELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEOF L EGAL METROLOGY

L ONDON, UK

913 O CTOBER 2000


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

Eleventh International Conference of Legal MetThirty-fifth CIML MeetingDevelopment Council MeetingRound Table on Mutual Recognition

Meeting of Representatives of RLMOs

The Eleventh International Conference of Legal Metrology, Thirty-fifth Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology, Development Council Meeting and Round Table on Mutual Recognition took place at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London from 913 October 2000, at the invitation of the United Kingdom National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML).

The events were co-organized by the NWMLBIML and London-based Concorde Services,the week of meetings ended with a technical vto NWML and NPL facilities in Teddington.

The official Minutes of all these meetings, togwith the Decisions and Resolutions, are beingdrawn up by the BIML. In the meantime, a summary account of proceedings is given in English and in French on the following pages

Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London


18/87

22 O I M L B U L L E T I N VO L U M E X L I I NU M B E R 1 J A N U A RY2 0 0 1

L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

Program for the weeks meetings

Monday 9 October 08:00 09:00 Registration, CIML

09:00 12:30 CIML Meeting13:30 14:30 Registration, Conference14:30 17:30 Conference, opening and plenary session

Tuesday 10 October09:30 11:30 Conference, plenary session11:30 12:30 CIML Meeting14:30 17:30 Conference, plenary session

18:30 21:00 OIML Concert and Reception

Wednesday 11 October09:30 12:30 Development Council14:30 16:30 Round Table:Mutual recognition16:30 18:00 CIML Meeting

Thursday 12 October08:00 09:30 Finance Commission09:30 11:00 Technical work Commission11:00 12:00 CIML Meeting14:30 17:30 Conference, plenary session

18:00 19:30 UK Government Reception

Friday 13 October 09:00 10:30 Conference, plenary session, approval of Decisions and Resolutions, closure11:00 12:00 CIML Meeting12:00 18:00 Technical visit

22

00

00


L ONDON, UK 913 O CTOBER 2000

Delegates attending the Conference


19/87


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

Eleventh Conference Agenda

1 ORGANIZATION OF THE MEETING

1.1 Opening1.2 Roll-call - Verification of credentials - Quorum1.3 Voting procedures during Conference sessions1.4 Election of President and Vice-Presidents of the Conference1.5 Adoption of the agenda1.6 Constitution of working commissions1.7 Establishment of the schedule1.8 Approval of the minutes of the Tenth Conference1.9 Report on activities, by the President of the International Committee of Legal Metrology1.10 Miscellaneous information

2 MEMBER STATES AND CORRESPONDING MEMBERS

2.1 New Members - Expected accessions

2.2 The situation of certain Members

3 LONG-TERM POLICY

3.1 Report on actions carried out since the Tenth Conference3.2 Guidelines for the period 20012004

4 LIAISONS WITH INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS

4.1 Report on liaisons4.2 Addresses by Representatives of Institutions4.3 Discussions and conclusions

5 WORK OF OIML TECHNICAL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES

5.1 Work undertaken - State of progress5.2 Implementation of Recommendations by OIML Members5.3 Formal sanction of Recommendations already approved by the Committee in 1997, 1998 and 19995.4 Draft Recommendations directly presented for sanctioning by the Conference

6 OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

6.1 Report on the situation of the System6.2 Report on the setting up of a recognition agreement for OIML type evaluations6.3 Guidelines for future developments

7 DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

7.1 Report on activities for the period 199720007.2 Guidelines for future activity

8 ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS

8.1 Examination of the management of the budget from 1996 to 1999 and the estimates for 20008.2 Bureau staff and retirement scheme8.3 Credits for the financial period 20012004 and Member State contributions for this same period

9 OTHER BUSINESS

10 CLOSURE

10.1 Adoption of decisions and resolutions of the Conference10.2 Date and place of the next Conference

22

00

00


L ONDON, UK 913 O CTOBER 2000


20/87

Dr. Kim Howells MP,welcoming Delegates in his opening speech


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

Dr. Faber, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am delighted to welcome you to London - to the QueenElizabeth II Conference Centre - and to the 11th InternationalConference of Legal Metrology.

Since taking up my current ministerial responsibilities, I havebecome increasingly aware how important measurement is innearly all aspects of our lives. The Olympic Games, which finishedlast week in Sydney, highlighted over and over again howimportant, and how precious, a few thousandths of a second or afraction of a centimetre can be. The measurements with whichOIML, and therefore this Conference, are concerned are of fargreater significance, because they affect all our lives in so manyways. Fair trade, personal health and safety, and the protection of the environment all depend on our ability to measure accuratelyand on our confidence in the results.

In this country, as in so many others, the Government has along record of taking the necessary steps to guarantee theintegrity of measurement. In 1215, King Johns Magna Cartaincluded an instruction that there should be consistent standardsfor the measurement of grain, beer, and cloth throughout thecountry and from the thirteenth century onwards there werefrequent Acts of Parliament to improve and develop the regulationof measurement. In the twenty-first century this development isstill continuing, reflecting new technologies and a growingawareness of the contribution quality systems and accreditationcan make to the reliability of products and the accuracy of measurements. Today it is not only the measurement of food anddrink which is of interest to consumers and governments. Recentevents in Europe have drawn attention to the measurement of vehicle fuels, where high prices increase consumer concern and

provide greater incentive for fraud. Outside the area of trade,medical diagnosis and treatment, for instance, depend on reliable

11 TH OIML CONFERENCE

Opening Address - Dr. Kim Howells (MP)MINISTER FOR CONSUMERS ANDCORPORATEAFFAIRS

assessment of symptoms and accurate measurement of doses,whether of medicine or of radiation.

Today in many countries, legislation is largely based onRecommendations prepared by you in the OIML. In the UK, wehave aligned our requirements for trade measuring instrumentswith OIML specifications. Thus collaboration at the internationallevel not only facilitates the sharing of best practice, it is alsohelping to remove barriers to trade which had grown up asnations developed their national laws.

Here in Europe, the European Commission has justpublished its proposals for a measuring instruments Directive,which will ensure common regulatory requirements for a widerange of measuring instruments throughout the European Union.One of the unusual features of this Directive is the inclusion of references to OIML Recommendations for the performancerequirements for measuring instruments. The UK will work withits partners in Europe, and with you in OIML, so that ourlegislation is consistent with that in the rest of the world. OIMLhas an important task here, ensuring that the necessaryspecifications are available and up-to-date, to form the basis forthis new European regime.

It is of course essential to ensure that access to these modernmarkets and the benefits of good metrological regulation areequally available to developing countries. I see that developingcountries are well represented at this Conference and I aminterested to learn that your own Development Council will meethere on Wednesday morning. By providing information, advice,and training to developing countries, as well as by listening totheir particular concerns, you can facilitate their access tomarkets and contribute to the removal of technical barriers whichdiscriminate against those countries which are still in a state of industrial development.

By hosting this Conference, my government has indicated itscontinuing support for international collaboration in the field of metrology. UK representatives play an active role in OIML and inthe work of other international bodies with an interest inmetrology. My officials at the National Weights and MeasuresLaboratory participate in OIML in various ways, and they havebeen instrumental in establishing WELMEC as the Europeanregional cooperation in legal metrology. There are now no fewerthan nine similar regional groups, and the meeting on Saturdaymorning will offer them the opportunity to compare notes with a view to dissolving barriers which may still exist between them.

All in all, you have a full and busy week ahead of you. I wishyou a successful Conference and hope that the resolutions at yourfinal session on Friday morning will reflect fruitful discussion andset the agenda for the success of OIML in the coming years. I lookforward to hearing a report of your progress from Dr. Bennett andto meeting you all again at the reception on Thursday evening.

Have a good week!


21/87

1 Organization of the Meeting

Following some introductory remarks made by Mr.Faber, the Eleventh International Conference of LegalMetrology was officially opened by Dr. Kim Howells(Member of Parliament), the Minister for Consumersand Corporate Affairs of the United Kingdom. Dr.Howells speech is reproduced in full opposite.

The roll of Delegates was called and it was estab-lished that 48 (47 in some Conference sessions) MemberStates were present out of a total of 57, thus the requiredquorum of two thirds was reached. Also present wereobservers from a number of OIML CorrespondingMembers and International and Regional liaison Organ-izations, CIML Immediate Past-President KnutBirkeland and Messrs. Athan, Szilvssy, Dunmill andPulham from the BIML.

Mr. Athan explained voting procedures at theConference, as votes would be cast during the week to

formally sanction OIML Recommendations and approvefinancial decisions. The Conference President waselected: Dr. Robert Foster, Director for InnovationServices at the Department of Trade and Industry of theUnited Kingdom. Seton Bennett (United Kingdom)would stand in as and when required since Dr. Fosterhad a busy schedule that week, and Mr. Beard (SouthAfrica) and Dr. Pkay (Hungary) were elected as Con-ference Vice-Presidents.

Opening of the Conference (L to R): Bernard Athan, Robert Foster, Kim Howells MP, Gerard Faber, Seton Bennett

The Conference adopted the proposed agenda (seeearlier) with one slight change: Item 6.2, Report on the setting up of a recognition agreement for OIML type evaluationswould be dealt with during the Round Tableon Mutual Recognition, to be held on Wednesday 11.

Two working commissions were formed: one forfinancial matters and one for technical work. TheConference then approved the minutes of its TenthConference (Vancouver, 1996) without comment ormodification.

Gerard Faber then presented his Report on Activitiessince the last Conference, the purpose of which was toenable the Conference to determine how decisions madein the past have been implemented, and on whichpresent and future actions the OIML should focus inorder to set the guidelines to be followed by the OIML inits strategy over the forthcoming years.

Mr. Faber specified that the OIML does not justoperate within a closed circuit, but rather externalizesits work and seeks to increase its connections and hence

its audience. Since the Tenth Conference, the number of OIML Members (its internal audience) had steadilyincreased from 96 to a current 105, comprising 57Member States and 48 Corresponding Members. Thisprogression was regarded as globally satisfactory.

The external audience from the numerous interna-tional and regional organizations whose activities arerelated to those of the OIML was also of importance,pursued Mr. Faber. In the context of globalization it is


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

11 TH OIML CONFERENCE

ReportCHRISPULHAM


22/87

themselves and establish the contacts which they deemappropriate.

A third category of bodies is extremely interested inour work and whose cooperation with OIML may beessential, added Mr. Faber: the manufacturers and usersof measuring instruments, including consumers, whomwe can consider as users in a larger sense since, for agreat part, the conditions, whether economic, social orenvironmental, in which they live are dependent onmeasurements.

One OIML activity which is quickly gaining groundis the OIML Certificate of Conformity System, he con-tinued: over 400 certificates have been issued since the10th Conference, and the total number of certificatesissued is currently round the 700 mark.

Mr. Faber then reminded those present that the 10thConference had instructed the Committee to work on a

certain number of subjects, including: activities in favor of developing countries: a full report

would be given during the Development CouncilMeeting;

closer cooperation between the OIML and the meas-uring instruments industry (as mentioned above, thiscooperation is increasing);

the development of documents covering variousaspects of metrology, not restricted to legal metrology,which had not yet effectively got off the ground:actually, this project would need the assistance of other metrology and standardization organizations, asthe OIML cannot deal with such topics alone;

thoughts on accreditation in legal metrology (relatedto the item on the measuring instruments industry);and

reconsideration of OIMLs communication policy (forexample, increased use of the Internet).

Two decisive elements had helped to determine andfinalize the objectives laid down at the 10th Conference,he continued: the 1998 Braunschweig International Seminar helped

to bring to light a certain number of fundamentalaspects of metrology and its role in societys economicand social development; and

the report Legal Metrology at the Dawn of the Twenty- first Century by Knut Birkeland gave additionaldirection to the OIMLs goals.

Numerous thoughts and discussions also developedwithin the Committee and its Presidential Council,which - together with the BIML - drew up a list of actions aimed at progressively satisfying the needs whichwere encountered, specific persons or organizationsbeing designated to carry out these actions according toa fixed calendar. The resulting document is the

19992002 Action Plan, distributed in April 1999; by andlarge, Mr. Faber commented that the majority of the

essential that the various international and regionalorganizations carrying out similar activities closelycooperate and consult each other in order to avoidduplication of work and discrepancies. From this pointof view, Mr. Faber felt that the last four years had beenextremely profitable for the OIML.

He affirmed that cooperation between the OIML andcertain of these organizations was also progressingbilaterally, in particular ISO and the IEC with whom joint projects are being developed; efforts towardsincreased cooperation were deployed with the MetreConvention, after it had come to light that at present amerger was not possible: this led, for example, to the joint organization by the BIPM, the OIML, IMEKO andthe PTB of an important Seminar on the Economic andSocial Role of Metrology in 1998.

At the same as we are experiencing cooperation at

the worldwide level, said Mr. Faber, we have also ex-perienced (and continue to experience) increasing andextremely promising cooperation at the regional level. Atpresent, many parts of the globe are covered by regionallegal metrology organizations (RLMOs) and the CIMLspolicy concerning this is clear: to encourage appropriatedevelopment of regional cooperation by observingRLMO activities and by informing them of thecorresponding OIML activities, by ensuring that theseregional activities are not in conflict with or do notduplicate international activities, by ensuring thatregional needs that may be satisfied at internationallevel are quickly and appropriately satisfied, and, finally,by enabling RLMOs to become acquainted amongst


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

Tower Bridge


23/87


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

scheduled objectives are being carried out in anappropriate manner, though it was sometimes hard tofind enough time to accomplish everything that shouldbe done.

Among the actions which Mr. Faber considered asbeing top priority for the OIML is the establishment of aMutual Recognition Agreement concerning the testingof measuring instruments covered by OIML Recom-mendations. This topic would be the subject of a RoundTable, to be held on the Wednesday afternoon.

A second top priority action concerns OIML assist-ance to countries that are currently developing theirmetrological infrastructure.

The OIML cannot be held solely responsible for suchaction; other organizations, and Mr. Faber was espe-cially referring to the BIPM, are concerned by this topicand the OIML is, of course, ready to cooperate with

them. But, scientific and technical aspects aside, for thistype of action nothing of significance can be set upwithout the active participation of national, regional andinternational organizations to settle the financial,material and administrative aspects of this aid.

Top priority should also be given to pursuing anddeveloping cooperation between the OIML and otherinternational and regional institutions with similarobjectives.

Finally, warned Mr. Faber, the OIML would have toface up to sometimes profound changes occurringwithin the national legal metrology organizations of certain of its Members. These changes may take ondifferent aspects but they will, more often than not,result in a decrease in the human and financialresources that our Member States may put at the OIMLsdisposal.

The privatization of certain fields of activity, alreadyeffective or envisaged in a certain number of countries,is often accompanied by eagerness to gain immediateprofitability and international cooperation sometimesno longer becomes a priority. In addition, manyadministrations see their budgets stagnate or diminish,which also results in a decrease in our work capacity.

The OIML will have thus to cope with such

evolutions which seem unavoidable even if they mayseem regrettable.Better adaptability in confronting external evolu-

tions, greater use of the work projects of other interna-tional and regional organizations, and concentrating ontop priority projects, seemed to Mr. Faber as being themethods that should enable the OIML to continue tocarry out the role it has been assigned by its MemberStates and it was now up to those present to make thedecisions which will allow us to better plan for suchevents and to adapt the OIMLs strategy to theirrepercussions.

This concluded Mr. Fabers Report on Activitiessincethe 10th Conference.

2 Member States andCorresponding Members

The total number of OIML Members had significantlyincreased since the Tenth Conference, although anumber of Corresponding Members had been delistedfor not having paid their subscriptions for over threeyears. Some Corresponding Members were also en- visaging joining as Member States, as they wished toparticipate more actively in OIML activities, and anumber of new countries or economies were expected to join as Corresponding Members in the not too distantfuture.

However, it was pointed out that two or three Corres-ponding Members would probably have to be delisted bythe end of 2000 for not having paid their subscriptions

for over three years; it was also noted that the situationof two Member States would be examined by theFinance Commission, which would then report to theConference under Item 8.1; in fact to reaffirm theOrganizations commitment to helping its Members toface up to their obligations, and not defeat the object of the exercise it was decided not to strike these twoMembers off the list, provided that their 2000 andsubsequent contributions were paid on time. There wasgeneral consensus that this decision was the bestsolution until these countries could pay the remainderof their outstanding dues.

3 Long-Term Policy

Most of the information concerning the actions carriedout since the Tenth Conference, including the develop-ment of the 19992002 Action Plan, was given in Mr.Fabers Report on Activities(see above). The Conferenceendorsed this Action Planand requested the CIML tomonitor its implementation and to extend it as far asnecessary in order to cover the 20022004 period.

4 Liaisons with International andRegional Institutions

A report on liaisons was presented by Mr. Athan, and awritten report was distributed to participants; followingindividual presentations by representatives of a numberof institutions, the floor was opened for discussion.

The OIML currently enjoys cooperation - to varying

degrees - with over a hundred other institutions, rangingfrom frequent contacts (for example ISO) to more


24/87

UNIDO

Cooperation between UNIDO, the PTB and the OIML infavor of certain least developed African countries isunderway.

ILAC / IAF

Mr. Squirrel gave a presentation and delivered a writtenreport on behalf of ILAC Chair Belinda Collins.Cooperation between the OIML and ILAC is developing;the two Organizations share a common interest in theaccuracy of test reports, and the BIML will participate inthe ILAC 2000 General Assembly in Washington, D.C.;this will also be an opportunity to establish new contactswith the IAF secretariat.

IMEKOCooperation is good in all fields of common interest andshould also soon develop in the field of software.

CECIP

Mr. Anthony addressed the OIML, stressing howimportant it was to build up a certain level of confidencebetween OIML Members; he was surprised to see thatOIML certificates are not always accepted by all theMember States. He urged the OIML to involve manu-facturers more actively in its activities, and stressedCECIPs desire to maintain the current high level of cooperation with the OIML.

CECOD

Mr. Wim Klein, who was presented with an OIML awardfor his outstanding contribution to OIML work,addressed Delegates on behalf of CECOD. This was thefirst time that a CECOD spokesperson was present at anOIML Conference, despite previous close cooperationover Recommendations R 117/R 118. Work was ongoingto ensure that these Recommendations were updated in

line with the MID requirements, which would probablytake about 2-3 years. He affirmed his satisfaction inworking in cooperation with the OIML and looked for-ward to continued close collaboration.

RLMOs

Regional Legal Metrology Organizations are developingand, as indicated by Mr. Faber in his Report on Activities,the OIML is closely following these developments whichit encourages, whilst still endeavoring to ensure that

these activities at international and regional levels areaccomplished without there being any contradiction


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

occasional work (for example the WHO). The degree of cooperation was regarded as generally satisfactory, andone prime example of the success of such work is therecently published joint ISO-OIML publication onVehicle Exhaust Emissions. The OIML would also soonbe in a position to accept IEC Standards as OIMLRecommendations, especially in the field of acoustics: afuture sound level meters Standard is likely to replacethe existing OIML R 58 and R 88.

Below are brief summaries of the presentationsmade by representatives of international and regionalorganizations, including summaries of the current situ-ation in cases where a representative was unable toattend the Conference.

BIPM

Although a merger is currently not possible, it wasnevertheless decided by both the BIPM and the OIML tocontinue to study areas in which cooperation could bemutually beneficial, for example in coordinating aid todeveloping countries which develop their own nationalmetrology systems, as well as the development of textsthat could serve as the basis for national metrology laws.The two Organizations meet annually, and ILAC is alsonow invited to attend.

ISO and IEC

Cooperation is developing satisfactorily and the OIML isparticipating more and more actively in ISO DEVCOand CASCO work. Other joint projects are outlinedabove, and both Organizations agree that continuing towork closely together can cut down on wasted time andresources, by avoiding duplication of work and poolingexperts knowledge.

JCGM

The Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, comprisingBIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML,

has to date published two publications: the VIM and theGUM. Meetings on these Guides are scheduled to takeplace at the BIPM in November 2000 with a view to theirrevision.

WTO

The BIML regularly attends the World Trade Organiza-tion TBT Committee meetings and a regional (Mediter-ranean) seminar on metrology is soon to be organizedby Mr. Magana at the WTOs request and will includeBIML participation. It is envisaged that the CIPM

President will hold a conference on scientific metrologyon that occasion.


25/87

between them, nor any overlap in scope. OIML/RLMOcooperation is at the same time satisfying, useful and very promising for the future (see the CIML Presidents Report on Activities).

The OIML has made efforts to participate in all themain RLMO meetings either via CIML Members orBIML Staff, and has most often contributed to thesuccess of seminars and workshops by the participationof experts, supplying OIML documents, etc. The BIML ismaking a point of being better aware of the results of thework of certain RLMOs and letting other regions benefitfrom this work (for example, videos developed by theAPLMF).

Addresses were given by representatives of theAPLMF, the Balkan Cooperation, COOMET, the Euro-Mediterranean Legal Metrology Forum (EMLMF),IOLMF, SADCMEL, SIM and WELMEC. Accounts of

recent RLMO meetings have been published in previousissues of the OIML Bulletin; suffice to say that OIML-RLMO cooperation is becoming increasingly close infields such as prepackages, taximeters, utility meters,legal metrology training and provision of technicalassistance, mutual recognition, use of the Internet as amore rapid and universal communication means, etc.

European Union

Mr. Hanekuyk gave up to date information on behalf of the European Commission in view of the developmentof the European Directive on Measuring Instruments(MID) which will cover nearly all the measuringinstruments that are subject to legal metrology controlsin the EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA)countries, as well as in those countries that are candid-ates to become EU members, i.e. a total of about 2530countries, all of whom are OIML Member States orCorresponding Members.

The MID text has been approved by the EuropeanCommission and must now be approved by the Counciland the European Parliament. Its actual putting intoapplication could be accomplished in four years (thougha target date of 1 July 2002 was mentioned by Mr.

Hanekuyk) and it is quite possible that between now andthen certain metrological requirements will have beenmodified.

Given the fact that the format of the MID is notice-ably different to that of OIML Recommendations, onlythe aspect of compatibility between MID and Recom-mendation requirements has been assured: basically, theaim is for instruments that conform to the OIML to berecognized as conforming to the MID.

For this to happen, and thanks to the action of European experts and WELMEC, this aspect wasmanaged in such a way that the major metrological

requirements of the MID do not contradict those of theOIML. Moreover, senior Commission staff recognized


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0

that it was appropriate that the presumption of con-formity chapter in the MID should refer not only toEuropean standards (CEN/CENELEC) but also to thenormative documents developed by the OIML whichare recognized as giving a presumption of conformity tothe requirements of the MID. In this way, manufacturersof measuring instruments will generally have the choicebetween directly applying the requirements of the MID,following European standards or following OIMLRecommendations, this third possibility giving them theassurance that they will more readily be able to offertheir instruments for sale outside Europe.

These developments at the European level have,moreover, led the BIML to reopen discussions oncooperation with CEN and CENELEC.

Other regional organizations

The BIML cooperates whenever necessary with regionalorganizations, a part of whose work is directed towardsmetrology, in particular ARSO.

Manufacturers and users associations

Over the last two years, the BIML has tried to identifysuch associations that are likely to participate in OIMLwork. Mainly European associations have been con-tacted, but in some cases worldwide associations arealso concerned (distribution of electricity, vehicles thatfunction on natural gas, etc.).

The floor was then opened up for a discussion oncooperation between the OIML and the variousinstitutions, and a number of Delegates suggested itemsof concern for the future:

Tower of London


26/87


27/87

Committees including the document on externalliaisons;

Summaries of OIML TC/SC technical activities basedon the Annual Reports published every year in theApril issue of the OIML Bulletin;

In addition to the monitoring of technical activities,updating documents and regular distribution of information on OIML technical work, regularcontacts with the Secretariats of TCs and SCs byBIML staff in order to identify difficulties and to try tofind appropriate solutions to problems;

Increased checking of OIML Recommendations andDocuments by BIML staff prior to publication forboth editorial and technical content.

In 2000 a total of 67 OIML technical bodies (18 TCsand 49 SCs) are responsible for 122 work projects. Two

Technical Committees - TC 5 and TC 13 - have been vacant since last year and TC 8/SC 2 became vacantrecently.

On the subject of the implementation of OIMLRecommendations by Member States, Mr. Szilvssyreminded participants that the degree of implementa-tion must be reviewed every four years. The last inquiryhaving been carried out in 1996, a new one wasinstigated by the BIML in April 2000. But in order forthe BIML to be able to draw up and publish the fullyupdated versions of the two documents in question anddraw more accurate and well-founded conclusions, it isnecessary that those OIML Member States that have notyet replied send their responses to the BIML as soon aspossible.

Mr. Szilvssy went on to comment that a number of existing differences (and/or additional requirements) innational regulations (especially in OIML MemberStates) compared to OIML Recommendations need tobe eliminated, since they create unnecessary barriers totrade and - at the same time - hinder acceptance of OIML type test results/OIML certificates.

Although the necessary measures to be taken are notexplicitly included in the19992002 Action Planthey areformulated in theOIML Long-term policy Assessment

of OIML strategies and activitiesand endorsed by theTenth Conference in its decision. This issue is to beregarded as a permanent task for all OIML MemberStates.

The moral obligation of Member States to imple-ment OIML Recommendations in national regulations isalso reinforced by the WTO TBT Agreement.

In addition, there is a proposal from UN/ECE(circulated by the WTO TBT Committee) to develop aglobal model for implementingGood regulatory practice for the preparation, adoption and application of technical regulations via the use of international standards. The

acceptance of this proposal and the provisions of such adocument will most likely enhance the necessity for

internationally harmonized national regulations basedon international standards.

The probable approval of the MID in the near futureand the development of Normative Documentsbased onOIML Recommendations by joint efforts of EU MemberStates (that are also OIML Member States) and theBIML will have a positive effect on improving theimplementation of OIML Recommendations.

Under the supervision of Mr. Johansen (Denmark),the Conference then proceeded to formally sanction the12 new or revised Recommendations already approvedby the Committee in 1997, 1998 and 1999 (Rs 49-1, 60,65, 81, 85, 93, 99, 125, 126, 127, 128 and 129). All theseRecommendations were successfully sanctioned.

The Conference then sanctioned three draft Recom-mendations (Octave and one-third-octave band filters,Polymethylmethacrylate dosimetry systemsand Alanine

EPR dosimetry systems) directly.

6 OIML Certificate System

Prof. Kochsiek distributed a detailed report drawn up bythe BIML listing the main developments since the 10thConference; the most important of these is the result of surveys carried out in 1997, 1998 and 2000, whichindicate that:

the System and the acceptance of certificates (testresults) are evolving by themselves on a voluntarybasis;

results achieved and further developments areencouraged both by manufacturers and by OIMLMembers; and

actions envisaged in the19992002 Action Planare inline with the needs and proposals of manufacturersand OIML Members.

Concerning future developments of the System, hepointed out that two sets of activities are being carriedout in parallel:

the first set is directly related to the promotion anddevelopment of the System itself; and

the second set is related to the promotion of theacceptance of OIML type test results/OIML certifi-cates and to confidence building between the partiesconcerned (see actions as formulated in B.1B.3 of the19992002 Action Plan).

Other relevant facts and figures were given (as at2000.09.15):

671 certificates registered;

30 Recommendations applicable within the OIMLCertificate System;


L o n d o n 2 0 0 0


28/87

209 applicants and manufacturers from 31 countrieshave been granted certificates;

23 Issuing Authorities in 20 Member States estab-lished.

A problem was put forward for consideration:statistics on the evolution of the System clearly show notonly that a natural time delay exists between theapproval and publication of a Recommendation and theissuing of the first OIML certificates, but also that thereis a growing gap between the categories of measuringinstruments applicable within the System (currently 30)and the categories for which OIML certificates haveactually been issued (currently only 11).

The situation is likely to improve taking into accountthe lead time, the applicability in the near future of therevised Recommendations on utility meters (R 49, R 75,etc.) and the future implications of the MeasuringInstruments Directive (MID) of the EU.

Nevertheless, Recommendations will exist for cate-gories of measuring instruments for which there ispractically no interest for their real application withinthe System.

In concluding, it was therefore proposed that consid-eration be given by all interested parties (especially theTCs/SCs responsible for the development of givenRecommendations) as to whether it is really worthdeveloping Test Report Formats (which require con-siderable time and energy to produce) for categories of measuring instruments for which practically no interestcan be envisaged for issuing (and accepting) OIMLcertificates.

Prof. Kochsiek concluded this Item by mentioningthat the Round Table on Mutual Recognitionwoulddoubtless provide more ideas for the further develop-ment of the System.

7 Developing Countries

Mrs. Annabi chaired the Development Council meeting

together with Ian Dunmill; a full account is publishedseparately.

8 Administrative and Financial Matters

Mr. Birch led discussions on this item. As alreadyreported in paragraph 2 of this report, the question of whether or not two particular Member States should bestruck off the list for not having paid their subscriptionsfor over three years was debated at some length, as was

the issue of whether the monies paid in 2000 should beset against their arrears or against this years contri-

butions; the latter solution was chosen and theConference adopted a resolution not to strike them off,assuming that future years dues were paid on time.

The Conference examin