services.accredia.itservices.accredia.it/uploaddocs/2767_eaga11m27_draft... · web viewdraft...

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00

Draft Minutes of 27th EA General Assemblyheld on 25 and 26 May 2011 in Berlin, Germany

1. Opening of the meeting - Welcome from the host - Introduction of members and guests

The Chair invited Dr Schultes, from the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology to deliver a welcome speech. The Chair thanked him for his kind words and wishes as well as for the support given to EA.

Thomas Facklam (TF) from DAkkS, as the host, gave practical information about the arrangements for the meeting.

The Chair welcomed the whole assembly, from the EA Members and BLA signatories to the representatives of DG ENTR and CLIMATE ACTION, through the EAAB members and recognized stakeholders (BUSINESSEUROPE, CEN/CENELEC, CEOC International, EFAC, EOCC, EOQ, EUROLAB, EURAMET, WELMEC). APLAC and IAAC were also welcomed.

After inviting the delegates to introduce themselves, the Chair confirmed that the quorum was present.

On the second day, Dr Holtmann representing BDI, the German Federation of Industries, highlighted the utmost interest of accreditation as serving the needs and expectations of industry. He wished EA a fruitful meeting day.

2. Approval of agenda

The Chair suggested that Item 10.2.3 be deleted as it would be covered under Item 5.1.1.

After the morning break on day 2, a short presentation on EU/ETS will be given by Mrs Creste- Manservisi, Head of Unit in DG CLIMATE ACTION (subject to her arriving in Berlin and not being prevented from coming due to the volcanic ash cloud).

The agenda was approved with the proposed change.

3. Review and approval of the minutes of the 26 th meeting of the General Assembly held in Budva

The minutes did not raise any comment or suggested changes.The minutes were approved as distributed as a true record of the last meeting discussions.

4. Chairman’s communications


The Chair made a presentation to review the actions undertaken and work achieved since the last GA. The presentation did not raise any comment.

5. Operational issues

5.1 Ratification of ballots

The Chair reviewed the results of the electronic ballots.There were no queries on the electronic process.The General Assembly ratified the results of the electronic ballots.

G. H. Schaub (GHS) from CEOC advocated that EA should make clear that EA-1/17 S1 is binding only in countries where Regulation (EC) 765/2008 has been legally implemented. The comment was noted.

5.1.1 Adoption of EA-2/02 “EA Procedures for the Multilateral Agreement”

The Chair clarified that the revised version is an interim version.

GHS repeated his comment made on EA-1/17. The Chair commented that the document is to apply within Europe.

The Chair invited the EA full members to vote by a show of hands.

The vote was positive: EA-2/02 is approved with one abstention.

5.2 Cooperation with sector schemes under the Executive Committee’s monitoring – Report

The Chair welcomed Mrs Creste-Manservisi from DG CLIMATE ACTION who had kindly accepted to make a presentation. Then the EA MAC Chair, TF, would present the proposed road map for developing the MLA to cover accreditation in the field of EU/ETS.

It was insisted on the importance of data credibility to ensure efficiency of the system, and hence on the importance of the role of verifiers. Exchange of information between competent authorities and NABs is important as well.

Vagn Andersen (VA) from DANAK commented that EA’s involvement at a very early stage of the development of the Regulation has been very efficient, and the work should stand as an example within the Commission for other projects.

The Chair commented that Mrs Creste-Manservisi’s presentation highlighted that EA will have to develop a plan to complete the work in order to meet the 1 January 2013 target. Mrs Creste-Manservisi indicated that the guidance must be available by mid-2012 for the Member States to have sufficient time to prepare for the start of phase 3 of EU/ETS.

The Chair then invited the MAC Chair to present the road map.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00In response to a question put by Nicole Meurée Van Laethem (NMVL) from BELAC, Mrs Creste-Manservisi clarified that both regulations for monitoring and reporting have to be in place by 1 January 2013. They have to be in place so as to ensure that any data coming as from 1 January shall go through the regulations. They will not be retroactive. There may be a need for transitional conditions, which should be further considered. NMVL pointed out that the response has a critical impact on the work of verifiers, and hence ABs.

The Chair clarified that verification bodies (VBs) have to be ready to operate according to the new regulation by 1 January 2013. There must be confidence that they are competent to do so by the deadline.

The figures that will be looked at will be the 2013 figures, and accreditation shall confirm competence of VBs and compliance with requirements entering into force on 1 January 2013.

Guy Jacques (GJ) from EUROLAB, the EAAB Chair, pointed out that accreditation of VBs will not be able to be done against the final applicable requirements as of the 1st of January 2013. He therefore suggested considering the accreditation process. GJ suggested extending the road map to the level of VBs to address the point of expectations with regards to VBs.

For VA, it is common practice to complete the accreditation process based on the results of witnessing activities which happen after the on-site assessment.EA members shall commit not only to sign the MLA, but also to be active in the proposed network of ABs so as to support work in the EC.Leopoldo Cortez (LCO) from IPAC, the EA CC Chair, emphasized that ABs will normally plan an assessment when requirements change and, therefore, they will be able to manage the process when the new regulations and the guidance enter into force. He strongly urged AB members to urgently contact their competent national authority (NA) in order to discuss the changes to be introduced into the system at the national level.

The Chair concluded by saying that the discussions were very useful since they highlighted several issues which need to be further looked at. EA’s aim is to continue cooperation with the European Commission (EC) in order to keep up with progress and come up with the appropriate plan.The presentations outlined the state-of-the-art and it was recognised that changes may have to be done in the EA and AB processes.The EC is developing the regulations within a frame that has been set out by the European Parliament, and EA has to recognise that. The road map, which is EA’s proposal, will have to be further discussed with the MAC and, as soon as additional information from DG CLIMATE ACTION that in any way may influence the road map is available, EA members will be immediately informed.

European Cancer Network

Hanspeter Ischi (HPI) from SAS presented his report on progress made with ECN. The report reflected that ECN is not fully ready to start the project.The project has been published in the OJEU; it describes how accreditation could be incorporated into the project.EA is discussing the conditions for receiving € 60,000 for the project from DG SANCO.Some guidance may have to be developed in future to ensure harmonised implementation of the scheme requirements. Assessor competence for ABs and CBs will have to be developed.Trial assessments are being considered to validate the proposed process and procedures.A more detailed project plan will be established with ECN at a meeting to be hosted by UKAS.


NMVL suggested clarifying what exactly ECN is expecting from accreditation for the CA activities envisaged in the scheme. HPI responded that the paper submitted is a working paper meant to challenge the project, pointing out that there is a lot of experience in EA, particularly in the field of diagnosis.

Martin Stadler (MS) from BUSINESSEUROPE, one of the EAAB Vice-Chairs, advocated raising the point of use of MDD with DG SANCO. HPI clarified that this scheme does not cover.Jacques McMillan (JMcM) from the EC confirmed that it is the Health Services of DG SANCO which are in charge of the project, and not the MDD persons.

The Chair added that DG SANCO was very much involved when the project was presented to the European Parliament (EP). From the start, the key issue has been to identify what activities accreditation would cover. Discussions have widened to cover all activities of the overall process, including testing activities and other aspects such as inspection or certification of services. The way forward is to identify what the activities to be accredited are.

Finally, the General Assembly agreed that work continues as proposed by the TFG led by HPI.

European Technology Verification

It is a scheme aiming at looking at claims made about the environmental impact of new technologies.One person has been appointed to follow up progress in EA.

JMcM indicated that while an EC accreditation steering group meeting was cancelled, discussions go on about connection with other projects that could be interrelated. The next ETV meeting is planned for July 2011.

EU/ETS

A report from Niels-Christian Dalstrup (NCD) from DANAK, convenor of the EX TFG, had been distributed. The stakeholder meeting had been attended by a large number of EA members, where the MAC Chair presented the proposed road map for introduction of the activities into the EA MLA.Final details of the Regulation are not yet available and may be changed (see also these minutes under Item 5.2 above).

VA reported that there had been a meeting the week before at which comments on Rev. 2 of the Regulation were discussed. The 3rd version will be available for comments from 6 June to 16 June. The final version is intended to be completed by the end of June.He pointed out that there was a proposal to introduce a licensing system, but he strongly recommended that members in their comments should promote the accreditation route as the unique route.

The Chair informed that, as soon as the next version of the Regulation is available, it will be sent out through the Secretariat for comments to be consolidated by NCD. The Chair insisted that it is important that EA follows on and actively contributes to the development of the scheme, as the timeframe for introduction of the new Regulation is very short.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 006. Strategic and policy issues

6.1 EA’s relations with the European Commission and EFTA

6.1.1 EA Work Programme 2010

The final report on WP 2010 had been distributed with GA papers for information. It was provided to the EC as required by the FPA.

JMcM clarified that there had been no meetings of the Accreditation Steering Committee; this is why EA had not been invited.

6.1.2 Draft EA Work Programme 2012

A copy of the working draft had been distributed with the meeting papers. It reflects the proposed WP of the various committees, which will be discussed later on at the meeting. They may be amended. The Chair pointed out that the programme actually reflects an ongoing programme for EA.The Executive Committee will consider revising the programme as a result of the discussions at the meeting, including concerning the Strategic Objectives of EA.The WP shall be submitted at the end of September. The final copy will also be presented to the General Assembly in November. Final changes will be able to be introduced at that stage.

Claudio Boffa (CB) from NAB-MALTA suggested including a reference to the role of the Financial Oversight Committee in the draft WP. The proposal was noted.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 006.2 EA Development Plan for the years 2010-2015

The Chair recalled that the Strategy paper had been approved in November 2010, when the General Assembly had asked for a minor revision that has been incorporated. In addition, the Executive Committee has considered a few additional minor revisions to tidy up various parts of the Strategy. The aim was now to reconfirm the Strategy incorporating the amendments.As also agreed in November, strategic objectives that provide the link between the Strategy and what needs to be put in place by 2015 have been developed. This will have to be reflected in the EA WPs.

The General Assembly confirmed its agreement to the proposed Strategy.

For Ignacio Pina (IP) from ENAC, a mechanism for enforcing EA decisions, outside of the MLA process, is needed and should be put into the paper.The proposal with regards to sanctions could be further developed. The Chair commented that the ultimate sanction would in any case be suspension of the membership. Every EA member is required to abide by the EA rules by virtue of its membership status.

The Chair informed the attendance that there is ongoing work to look at a document to be signed by EA members that would encapsulate each Member’s commitment to EA. However in principle, as a Member, every AB is signing up to abide by the rules. Therefore there is no real ground for developing a strategy to reach such an objective.

The Chair presented the document. The intention has been to balance the proposed objectives.Actions suggested will have to be put into the annual WP of the EA committees in order to meet the EA Strategic Objectives.

The Chair called for comments on the Strategic Objectives.

IP congratulated the Executive Committee, welcoming the proposed emphasis on benchmarking activities.

CEN/CENELEC welcomed the objectives, and confirmed the intention to reinforce links between EA and CEN/CENELEC.

JMcM pointed out that in Europe, officially, there are only 3 “institutions” and EA does not qualify for the status. He suggested changing the word.

The General Assembly agreed the proposed Strategic Objectives.

The Executive Committee will continue to develop and monitor the work. In future, there will be individual actions which will require discussions at the GA level.

VA stressed that the proposed actions do not involve the Executive Committee only, and he advocated that EA members shall be prepared also to take action.

6.3 Implementation of Regulation 765/2008

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 006.3.1 Implementation of SOGS N595 CERTIF 2009-06 Rev6-Cross border accreditation activities

Merih Malmqvist Nilsson (MMN) from SWEDAC, the EA HHC Chair, indicated that the contents of the paper submitted to the GA are planned to be incorporated into EA-2/13: EA Cross-Frontier Policy for Cooperation between EA Members.She also indicated that revised EA-2/13 will be sent out for comments before the summer break.

NMVL pointed out that the proposed rules for multisite accreditation could also apply at the national level, but this is not obvious from the document. A separate document may be useful to address multisite accreditation. There is a risk that the very good principles to be embedded into EA-2/13 may lose their focus and significance for multisite accreditation at the national level.

It was agreed that the HHC TFG on EA-2/13 will consider the point and come up with a proposal.Action HHC TFG

GHS suggested having a resolution for immediate implementation of the proposed principles.MMN’s opinion was to concentrate on developing the document to ensure common understanding and harmonized practices.

In summary, it was confirmed that principles are now being developed. The HHC will continue in the direction that the principles will be put into a separate document because they apply to all activities, and not only within the cross-frontier framework.From the stakeholders’ point of view, it is important to ensure that the principles are applied correctly.

JMcM highlighted that the cooperation principles are also important and should be given equal consideration.He added that a mature document would be welcomed at the last SOGS meeting of the year that is planned to take place on 17 November 2011, although the meeting will take place before the EA General Assembly where the result of the ballot on EA-2/13 is expected to be ratified.

6.3.2 EA position on Evaluation of the impartiality and objectivity requirements of ISO/IEC 17011 with particular focus on governmental national accreditation bodies

In response to the SOGS, the HHC has developed the paper distributed in advance of the meeting, which had also been presented to the SOGS where it was well received.Because it is a summary of requirements already clearly stated in other documents, the Executive Committee recommends that the document should not be published in its own right, but that action is taken to make sure that we are using the value of the document. The proposal is to forward the document to the MAC and mandate the MAC to incorporate the contents into the evaluator training system.

The Chair called for comments.

GHS raised a concern about use of the word “firewalls”.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00TF reported that the document has already been used in the MAC. He also supported finding another word to describe the concept.

For Jean-Marie Reiff (JMR) from OLAS, there is a risk that discussions on impartiality emerge again in future without the paper being given an official status. The point was noted.

The Chair stressed that the Executive Committee intends to ensure that the principles are taken on board and are not lost or diluted.

MMN commented that, should the paper be transformed into an EA document, the HHC-member stakeholders have expressed the wish that the document goes out for comments according to the EA procedure.

For JMcM, the paper is more than a summary of requirements as it provides an explanation of the requirements and, as such, may need to have a higher profile.

On behalf of the National Authority College of the EAAB, Michael Nitsche (MN), one of the EAAB Vice-Chairs, supported to publish the document in a more official way.

IP suggested publishing the document as an EA separate document bringing together a set of annexes to ILAC/IAF A5, and the guidance to ISO/IEC 17011. In future there may be a need for other annexes to address other specific issues.

R. Robinson from APLAC reminded the meeting that ILAC/IAF A5 already has a number of explanations about the requirements on impartiality and objectivity.

GHS supported that ISO/IEC 17011 and ILAC/IAF A5 provide a clear set of requirements and nothing else is necessary.

For JMcM, experience tends to show that clarity is needed with regards to impartiality requirements; if the standard is clear, the common understanding of it does not seem to be in place.

LCO reinforced the value of the Executive Committee’s recommendation and, for him, using the document as proposed within the training process would provide the requested clarity, in compliance with the international rules.

Rózsa Ring (RR) from NAT identified a risk of conflicting views within an EA/ILAC/IAF evaluation team. Therefore she suggested that EA submits the document to the ILAC/IAF A-series WG for the WG to consider how to accommodate EA’s needs.

In summary:There is a need to keep and use the document, while it is proposed not to create a separate document.It proved very clear at the General Assembly that the document gives EA’s interpretation of how to apply the requirements.The document will be put forward to the ILAC/IAF A-series WG for a proposal for future revision of ILAC/IAF A5.

IP added that the document is not applicable outside Europe as it refers and uses Regulation 765 requirements to support the explanation.


For JMcM, the impartiality of governmental bodies is not specific to Europe. It is a general preoccupation. He therefore supported the proposal to put the document forward to ILAC/IAF.

NMVL suggested that the document should be published as a document for use by evaluators, as part of the handbook given to evaluators. The proposal was noted.The Chair supported the proposal as it enhances the status of the document, for evaluators and MAC members.

6.3.3 Response to tenders for provision of accreditation

The Executive Committee had been made aware of a number of recent cases where one CAB applying for accreditation was circulating a tender seeking information on prices for being granted accreditation. Such practices clearly encourage competition. It is contrary to the Regulation’s principles, and this is why a proposal has been submitted to the General Assembly to adopt a policy to be incorporated in the EA Cross-Frontier Policy.

GHS stated that the proposal contradicts Article 7 of the Regulation. He claimed that CABs must have the right to select the AB offering the best service in terms of cost and timing.For the Chair, GHS’s interpretation does not seem to be correct.JMcM reiterated that the main purpose of Regulation 725 is to protect ABs from being commercial. He confirmed that the proposed policy is fully in line with the Regulation.

Kyriacos Tsimillis (KT) from CYS-CYSAB commented that the policy does not address the situations where EA ABs could be competing outside of Europe.Daniel Pierre (DP), the EA Vice-Chair, supported the point and that the case of Associate Members and BLA signatories should also be addressed.

Finally it was agreed to revise the proposed resolution, but the focus shall remain on the EA ABs.

R. Josias from SANAS highlighted that there may be a competition issue at the technical assistance level.The Chair confirmed that it is not meant to cover provision of expertise or technical assistance through international projects where more than one AB can be consulted.

7. Elections

The Chair indicated that elections would take place at the beginning of the meeting on day 2. He reminded the meeting that nominations for the Executive Committee’s positions, except for those of the Chair and Vice-Chair of EA, can still be submitted to the Secretary by the end of the meeting on day 1. The election of the EA Chair and Vice-Chair would take place at first, led by the MLA Council Chair.

KT clarified that, with regards to his candidature, he will commit to step down from his responsibility in EURACHEM if he is elected within EA. The Chair thanked KT for the clarification.

7.1 Election of Chair and Vice-Chair


Graham TALBOT was unanimously re-elected as Chair of EA with unanimous support from the delegates.Daniel PIERRE was unanimously re-elected as Vice-Chair of EA with unanimous support from the delegates.

7.2 Election of Committees Chairs and additional Members of the Executive Committee

The Chair confirmed that EA has received one nomination for each position of Committee Chairs.Five nominations have been received for the 4 additional positions in the Executive Committee.A ballot paper was distributed to be used for election of the 4 additional positions.

The results of the election were as follows:MAC Chair: Thomas FACKLAM was successfully re-elected as Chair of the MAC.HHC Chair: Merih Malmqvist Nilsson was successfully re-elected as Chair of the HHC.CPC Chair: Vagn ANDERSEN was successfully re-elected as Chair of the CPC.CC Chair: Leopoldo CORTEZ was successfully re-elected as Chair of the CC.IC Chair: Rolf STRAUB was successfully elected as the new Chair of the IC.LC Chair: Paolo BIANCO was successfully elected as the new Chair of the LC.

Those elected as the 4 additional members of the Executive are:Biserka BAJZEKRózsa RINGJan VAN DER POELIgnacio PINA

7.3 Election of one member and Chair of Financial Oversight Committee

Jiri RUZICKA, Filippo TRIFILETTI and Claudio BOFFA were successfully elected as members of the FOC with unanimous support from the delegates.Jiri RUZICKA was elected Chair of the FOC with full support of the other FOC members.

The General Assembly expressed its thanks to Jiri RUZICKA.

8. Financial issues

8.1 Accounts 2010

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 008.1.1 Financial audit report and certification of expenses claimed under 2010 operating grantAnd 8.1.3 Adoption of 2010 financial accounts

The Treasurer, Rózsa Ring (RR), presented her report.

The presentation did not raise any comment.

8.1.2 Report of the Financial Oversight Committee

The Chair reviewed the Executive Committee’s responses made to the report of the FOC.On behalf of Jiri Ruzicka (JR) from CAI, Filippo Trifiletti (FT) from ACCREDIA expressed his thanks to Claudio Boffa (CB) and the EA officers and Secretariat for their support in the preparation of the report.

FT clarified that what is needed in terms of additional information about flow of moneys is a document showing which amounts from the EC money were given to the ABs in compensation for their contribution to the WP.It was agreed to distribute the document to the FOC and the GA. Action Secretariat

The Chair extended the Executive Committee’s thanks to the FOC for their work. During the year, CB had been approached and kindly accepted to be appointed by the Executive Committee, on behalf of the GA, to take on his responsibility as the 3 rd member of the FOC, starting to bring its contribution in 2011.

8.2 Statement of accounts 2011

The Treasurer presented the statement.The Chair commented that the figures presented reflect the actuals at the end of April, but the Executive Committee’s objective is to balance the accounts at the end of the year.

The presentation did not raise any comment.

8.3 Budget and Fees Schedule 2012

RR indicated that a preliminary estimate had been made to evaluate the impact on the fee income of BLA signatories terminating their agreements with EA. The result is that for EA members, with an expenditure budget of the same order, membership fees would increase by 6% on average.

8.4 Procedures for the Operating Grant


8.4.1 Revision of EA Terms and Conditions and forms to be submitted in support of a request for payment

The Treasurer presented the proposed revision of the Terms and Conditions. The changes aim to clarify a few requirements; there are no major changes.

The Chair commented that, as shown by the presentation made by RR, there are many rules. EA has gone through a learning process and is starting to get better in managing the process. Further to the FOC’s recommendation, it is planned to produce simple guidelines for Members to fill in the forms in compliance with all applicable and detailed rules.

The proposal did not raise any other comment.

8.5 Revision of EA-0/05: Procedure for the Control of Expenditures and Preparation of Budgets

The Treasurer commented on the proposed changes to the procedure. The purpose is to improve and reinforce monitoring of the budget and use of EA/EC financial resources, as well as processes for checking, authorizing and processing payments.

The revised draft did not raise any comment.

9. Status of complaints and appeals

9.1 Status of complaints and appeals

The Vice-Chair indicated that he had to change his report due to recent progress with regards to complaints, and therefore the version projected at the meeting is an updated version, compared to the document sent out with the meeting papers.He highlighted that the process is a critical one in EA. The experience gained in managing the process shows that, in most cases, better communication between EA ABs would help avoiding a number of cases.

He then reviewed his report.

Concerning the complaint against DAkkS, Beatriz Rivera (BR) from ENAC pointed out that the complaint had been raised more than 2 years ago and it seems it has taken a lot of time before DAkkS reported on taking action. She requested that a resolution is taken to establish what EA would decide with regards to DAkkS in case the expected suspension of the DAkkS customer does not happen as planned.

There was no appeal to be reported on.

9.2 Sanctions

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00The Vice-Chair presented the proposed revision of the Rules of Procedure that allows EA to impose a sanction in the case of an AB failing to fulfil its duties and obligations towards EA or EA members.

He stressed that according to the proposal, decisions on sanctions will not need to be made at a General Assembly meeting. The proposal allows for the EX to have the possibility to take action in a very timely manner, but any sanction will ultimately remain a GA decision.

NMVL commented that there may be an overlap between the process allowed in the MAC and the proposed process.The Executive Committee’s proposal would apply to all EA members, and not just to MLA signatory members.

IP supported the proposal and that it should be developed into an operational procedure. A range of sanctions will have to be established.DP commented that the EX TFG in charge of the work has come to the same conclusion that the only real sanctions eventually could only be a suspension of membership or MLA signatory status, even if it may be seen as disproportionate in some cases. The TFG also recognized that it is unlikely that EA has to take such a sanction.

FT supported IP’s point. He supported the proposal that the General Assembly be the body taking the decision, but this should happen based on a proposed sanction.DP reiterated that the TFG could not come up with any other realistic and efficient proposals for sanctions, and he welcomed any suggestion.

For Norbert Müller (NM) from BMWFJ, in the absence of a definition, the General Assembly remains free to agree on the appropriate sanction. The proposal offers as much flexibility as possible in this regard.

GJ suggested putting a fine in terms of requiring a specific penalty fee.

VA supported to limit sanctions to suspension of membership or MLA signatory status.There is no option: an AB not complying with the EA rules should be suspended and a financial penalty would not compensate for the breach of the Member’s obligations.

IP suggested that using other options such as communicating the name of the AB would be in breach of the rules, but a grading is necessary as it may turn out to be very difficult to come up with a decision for suspension of membership or MLA signatory status. Alberto Musa (AM) from ACCREDIA supported IP’s point.

JMcM pointed out that any suspension of MLA signatory status would have legal implications which may be difficult to handle.

NMVL highlighted that the example of non-compliance with the EA cross-frontier policy may also come up at the MAC level where sanctions may be taken as well.

The proposal could be amended to be clearer on the scope: “For matters other than those normally dealt with at the MAC or arising from the peer evaluation process…”

LCO suggested that a “yellow card” could be issued in the form of a notification to the Member

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00State that the NAB is not complying with the EA rules. LCO also suggested planning additional peer evaluation in such a case.

Hans-Erik Holmqvist (HEH) from SWEDAC commented that EA ABs are now operating in a different framework and he supported LCO’s proposal to alert the national authorities.

For JMcM, the Regulation puts a clear responsibility on the Member State towards the NAB and therefore the proposal would certainly be efficient.On the contrary, he saw a risk in using peer-evaluation resources for that purpose.

Elsa Janeva (EJ) from BAS commented that the proposal should not lead to setting up a parallel evaluation system.

As a conclusion, the Vice-Chair invited the delegates to feedback any suggestion in writing to him by the end of June. Action Members

An amended version of the proposed revision of the Rules of Procedure was projected.The new change aims to address the point raised by NMVL to avoid confusion or overlap between the General Assembly and the MAC.VA recommended checking the Articles in order to ensure there is no conflict with the proposal. VA accepted to check and report at the General Assembly. Action VA

Regarding the complaint against DAkkS, the Chair proposed the following course of action:- The GA mandated DAkkS to report to the Executive Committee about suspension.- With regard to a sanction, it was considered inappropriate to open the discussion at the

meeting. But before the re-starting of the meeting, the Executive Committee will come up with a proposal to be submitted to the GA.

The proposal was accepted.

DP reported on the results of the Executive Committee’s meeting especially held to address the case. The Executive Committee suggested a course of action to be put into a resolution.

HEH asked about the current status of the laboratory with regards to accreditation. TF reported that, at present, the laboratory’s accreditation is still valid and will remain as such until 2 June.

VA pointed out that this case raises the need for looking at rules in force for suspension in EA.It is important to confirm that DAkkS’ process and procedures comply with the MLA requirements.

TF clarified that a decision has been taken and notified to the laboratory stating the 2 June deadline for suspension to enter into force.

The Chair commented that the discussions show a need to look at suspension in terms of harmonisation.

NMVL pointed out that normally the MAC has tried to avoid taking a position based only on an isolated case. She supported that an appropriate amount of time should be allowed for the MAC to do the job properly.

BR reminded the meeting that, for her, the General Assembly was considering the case of an AB having failed to comply with its obligations and take action according to the agreed compromise.


In summary, this is a very complex issue that appears for the first time. As a rule, proper preparation and documentation should be available to the GA before such discussions and any decisions. A resolution will be put to the GA for voting.The Executive Committee will reconsider the issue and report back to the GA. Action EX

10. Reports

10.1 Report of the EAAB Chair

The Chair of the EAAB presented his report which is published on the intranet sub-directory for the meeting.

GJ indicated that the next EAAB meeting will be his ultimate participation in the EAAB and wished the GA the best for future work and reinforced cooperation.

Hoang Liauw from CEN/CENELEC reported on problems that exist with the Key Mark scheme. CBs willing to apply for the scheme shall provide evidence of their accreditation. Problems arise when it comes to getting the scopes. Scopes are not consistent and therefore EA’s assistance in this matter is requested.The Chair indicated that the CPC will take the point on board in the discussions about development of a common template for accreditation scopes. He invited CEN/CENELEC to put forward detailed examples which will be fed back to the CPC and the CC for comment. Action CEN/CENELEC

10.2 Report of the MAC Chair

10.2.1 Approval of Work Program 2012

10.2.2 Accreditation of verification body under ISO 14065

TF presented his report which did not raise any comment or question.

He then presented the MAC WP 2012.

In response to a question raised by KT, TF confirmed that a training session for new peer evaluators is planned to take place in January 2012.

10.3 Report of the HHC Chair


10.3.2 Approval of NWI on revision of EA-1/06 “The EA Multilateral Agreement”10.3.3 Approval of NWI on Assessment of CAB sub-contractors

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 0010.3.4 MLA for verification activities against ISO 14065

MMN presented her report. She expressed her warm thanks to the Members for their contribution to the HHC’s work.

IP raised a concern about how EA will manage activities within the EU/ETS scheme from a technical point of view. He highlighted that at present related issues are discussed in several EA bodies, i.e. at the Executive Committee’s level through the EU/ETS TFG and at the CC’s level through WG Environment.The HHC Chair noted the comment and suggested that the Executive Committee should address it and come up with a proposal, based on the experience gained with development in the EU/ETS field.Action EX

The draft HHC WP 2012 did not raise any question or comment.

VA raised a point regarding the revision of EA-1/06 and MMN confirmed that one of the purposes of the revision is to identify which standards will be covered by the MLA.

Directives networks (DN) ReportMMM reported that a TFG was appointed in the HHC to manage DN work. The HHC TFG had collated information for the report which is the same model as the one used at the previous General Assembly. She thanked the TFG for their work.

10.4 Report of the LC Chair


10.4.2 Approval of NWI on revision of EA-4/09 ”Accreditation for Sensory Testing Laboratories”

10.4.3 Approval of NWI on revision of EA-4/15 ”Accreditation for Non-Destructive Testing”10.4.4 Approval of NWI on drafting of a guidance for ILC with few participants10.4.5 Approval of NWI on revision of EA Training Guides:

EA-3/05 ”Guidelines for Training Courses for Assessors Used by Laboratory Accreditation Schemes”,

EA-3/06 ”Guidelines for Selection of Participants to Courses for the Training of Assessors Involved in Assessment of Laboratories Applying for Accreditation”

EA-3/07 ”Program for Courses for Tutors for Assessor Training”10.4.6 Withdrawal of EA-2/10 ”EA Policy for Participation in National and International Proficiency Testing Activities”

Christina Waddington-Flinck presented her report.

The report did not raise any question or comment.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 0010.5 Report of the CC Chair


10.5.2 Use of ISO 22005 in accreditation10.5.3 Proposal for EA training on ISO 17021

LCO presented his report and reviewed the proposed WP 2012.He explained that the CC is recommending that, because it does not define clear requirements on certification, ISO 22005 shall not be used for accreditation purposes.

In response to a question by Rolf Straub (RS) from SAS about the MDCA scheme, it was clarified that accreditation in the field should refer to certification against ISO 13485 with additional requirements set out by IAF.

10.6 Report of the IC Chair


NM presented his report.

HEH reported that there is work ongoing in the car inspection field about developing accreditation. The MAC Chair made a presentation about EA at the CITA meeting held in Berlin some time before the General Assembly. The delegates voted in favour of accreditation to support the system, and HEH advocated that EA should take action to promote and contribute to further development in the field. NM confirmed that it is an ongoing action point in the IC.

NMVL commented on the work in the IC about flexible scopes. She reported on the feedback received from the market about scopes starting to be expressed in a broad and maybe confusing way. She advocated the IC as well as the LC and CC to address the point in order to make sure that the concept of flexibility is clearly stated and implemented in EA, in particular in terms of assessment as it appears that specific requirements on flexible scopes are not fully complied with and assessed.NM indicated that at the IC level, the objective of the discussions was first to agree on what flexible scope can be in order to feedback to the HHC.

The IC Chair commented that the discussion highlighted the importance of the coordinating role of the HHC in the work on flexible scopes.

As a final comment, MMN pointed out that it is not only a matter of how the scope is described, but also a matter of how the CAB manages it.

10.7 Report of the CPC Chair



10.7.2 Revision of EA-3/01: Conditions for the use of accreditation symbols, text reference to accreditation and MLA signatory status

VA presented his report.

MS welcomed the presentation and appreciated the progress made with projects and future planned activities that will help also to meet the EAAB’s expectations.Concerning an EA accreditation mark, he advocated setting a deadline for report on a firm proposal from EA. VA reminded the meeting that the point had already been discussed at the previous General Assembly in November 2010, when it has been decided not to develop further the project for a mark, but that the issue should be reconsidered at a later stage.

11. International issues

11.1 ILAC/IAF

The Chair informed the General Assembly that:- A TFG has been appointed to look at voting rules in ILAC whose results should be presented

back at the upcoming General Assembly in Bangkok. The work is developing under MMN’s leadership.

- The IAF Executive Committee is revising the IAF strategy. The revision will be discussed at the meeting in June, and the outcome will be presented to IAF Members at the General Assembly in 2012.

-- Revised PL 5 is out for comments. It has been proposed to disband the MLA group. Decisions

would then be taken by the MLA Committee where stakeholder organisations are present as well. This would create a problem in terms of confidentiality of the decision-making process.The EA Executive Committee discussed the point. The proposal could be supported subject to the MLA Committee Members signing a confidentiality undertaking and the reports and any information regarding the AB under evaluation being given only to the AB members.DP invited Members to support the Executive Committee’s position when commenting back to IAF.

12 Cooperation with regional organisations

12.1 Cooperation with APLAC


R.Robinson updated on the last meeting of APLAC:- The Board of Management has been looking at succession and strategic planning.- The Management Review has been completed.- Strategic partnerships and relationships have been discussed.- Regarding the MRA Council meeting, there had been no evaluation to look at. Additional

evaluators were accepted at the meeting.- Developing a webpage for evaluators in the form of a chat page for interaction amongst

evaluators and the MRA Council has been considered.- The Technical Committee has been mandated to develop a document offering guidance to ABs

for accreditation of PT providers.- The work is closely developing with PAC, and possibly towards having a joint General Assembly

eventually. Joint evaluations are planned.- The next APLAC meeting will take place from 7 to 16 September 2011 in the Philippines.

12.2 Cooperation with IAAC

I. Martinez from IAAC updated on the report of IAAC.- There are new signatories to the MLA: Chile’s AB and two other ABs have extended their scope

to new areas.- IAAC members have been recognised by IAF for EMS and product certification. I. Martinez

thanked the EA evaluators for their involvement in the IAF evaluation of IAAC.- PT rounds, for which participants from other regions are invited, are being organised.- A new strategic plan is to be approved at the next General Assembly in August 2011.

12.3 Cooperation with SADCA

The report had been posted onto the intranet on Monday 23 May.

12.4 Cooperation with PAC

No report was made.

13. Co-operation with stakeholder organizations

EUROLABJiri Sobola, the new Chair of EUROLAB, made a presentation highlighting the most recent achievements in EUROLAB.European CommissionJMcM expressed thanks to EA for accreditation running well without creating issues at the EC level. Progress in different subjects is noted with appreciation.

There is a revision of the Product Safety Directive upon request of the European Parliament as a result of the market surveillance rules being included in Regulation 765 rather than being in a separate regulation (Decision). It is hoped to have a mature document ready for the EP in September. There will be no change in the accreditation requirements, taking the words of the Decision into the specific directive. It is not a revision of technical requirements.

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00WELMECA new Chair has been elected, Mrs Anneke van Spronssen, coming from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

14. Adoption of resolutions


R1 ApprovedR2 ApprovedR3 ApprovedR4 ApprovedR5 ApprovedR6 ApprovedR7 ApprovedR8 ApprovedR9 ApprovedR10 Approved according to the results of the electionsR11 ApprovedR12 Approved as revisedR13 ApprovedR14 ApprovedR15 ApprovedR16 ApprovedR17 ApprovedR18 ApprovedR19 ApprovedR20 Approved

R20 a Resolution no 20a concerning sanctions against DAkkS was finally withdrawn. No consensus could be reached on the Executive Committee’s proposal.It was recognized that proper documentation was needed for the General Assembly to be able to make a sound decision.

The Chair concluded the discussion as follows:- It is expected that suspension by DAkkS enters into force on 2 June, as reported by DAkkS.- It is only if this does not happen that the Executive Committee will consider taking action against

DAkkS.

The Executive Committee, which has the confidence of EA members, will act and inform the General Assembly.

R21 Approved R22 ApprovedR23 ApprovedR24 ApprovedR25 ApprovedR26 ApprovedR27 ApprovedR28 ApprovedR29 ApprovedR30 ApprovedR31 ApprovedR32 ApprovedR33 Approved

EA/GA(M27 DRAFT REV 00R34 ApprovedR35 ApprovedR36 ApprovedR37 ApprovedR38 Approved with one abstentionR39 Approved with thanksR40 Approved

15. Next meetings of the General Assembly

The General Assembly agreed the following dates and venues for future meetings:

- 23-24 May 2012 in Madrid, Spain- xx-xx November 2012 in Bratislava, Slovakia- May/June 2013 in Paris, France

On behalf of the General Assembly, the Chair expressed appreciation for the excellent arrangements and support services provided by DAkkS for the meeting.

services.accredia.itservices.accredia.it/uploaddocs/2767_eaga11m27_draft... · web viewdraft...

Documents