Welcome to APMP website

Back Issues
no.18	no.20	no.21	no.22	no.23	no.24	no.25
no.26	no.27	no.28	no.29	no.30	no.31	no.32
no.33	no.34

Report from the 8th JCRB meeting and related actions

Hidetaka IMAI, AIST Chairman of the APMP The Joint Committee of the Regional Metrology Organizations and the BIPM (JCRB) meets twice a year under the supervision of the CIPM in the Metre Convention. The 8th JCRB meeting was held in Pretoria, South Africa, in March 2002; it was organized by the BIPM and supported by the NML/CSIR. Four APMP members (H. Imai, K. H. Lam, K. Seta, and T. Usuda) participated. Before this meeting, we had an Executive Committee meeting in Singapore through the courtesy of PSB (now SPRING) with the above four members plus P. Shiowattana and K. Jones. We prepared three documents related to the contents of the Calibration and Measurement Capability (CMC) in the global MRA, the review process of quality systems, and uncertainty expression.	The 18th APMP Executive Committee meeting held on 2 March 2002
The 8th JCRB meeting began on 4 March just after the end of the Workshop on Quality System in NMIs organized by NML/CSIR South Africa. The chairman of the JCRB (Dr. Quinn, Director of the BIPM) estimated that we have many items to be discussed at the 8th meeting. He therefore started the meeting one day before the original schedule. We concentrated on each item to be discussed in the agenda and had beneficial exchanges of opinions and views among all RMOs. The main issues for the discussion at the present meeting were: (1) how to finalize the transition period to the entry of Appendix C of the global MRA in the CIPM, (2) to confirm the general requirements of the technical competence for submitting CMCs, and (3) to discuss the requirement of quality systems for NMIs and their evaluation procedures. We discussed problems on the CMC submitted by an institute that has not participated enough for the key comparison data considering the alternative evidence. We submitted our discussion paper from the APMP prepared by the Executive Committee members and the chairman of the MRA-Advisory Committee (Barry Inglis of NML/CSIRO, Australia), and explained our view by emphasizing the following points since we are now in the transition period. The meeting participants fully examined our proposal and basically accepted it. The recommendations submitted from the APMP are as follows. Recommendation from the APMP That CMCs submitted by NMIs in the absence of supporting data from key and supplementary comparisons be eligible for inter-regional review and entry into Appendix C during the provisional period, provided that 1) traceability of the national standards is established through calibration by an NMI that has established its "degree of equivalence" through participation in the key comparison programs, and 2) a quality system is in place and competence has been demonstrated through third-party accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025, or through some other formal peer review process, including clear evidence of participation in measurements audits or bilateral comparisons. Finally, in the JCRB meeting, we determined to add the following explanatory note to our original criteria for accepting data for Appendix C (JCRB 7/1). The JCRB requires that the following points be considered in evaluating CMC submissions. 1. Results of key and supplementary comparisons¹⁾ 1) NMIs that have not yet taken part in key or supplementary comparisons are required, as a minimum, to have traceability of their national standards established through calibration by an NMI that has established its degree of equivalence through participation in the key comparison programs; they must also have participated in some bilateral comparisons in addition to meeting the criteria listed here. Notes 2 to 9 remain as they are. In the meeting, the calibration certificate issued by an NMI, interregional harmonization of CMC review process and quality system review were also discussed, and four documents (attached) were published by the secretary of the JCRB.
Other important decisions 1. The following documents will appear on the JCRB website together with other documents presented at the 8th JCRB meeting. * APMP Position Paper on requirements for CMCs from developing NMIs JCRB 8/7(3) * APMP's Proposal on Uncertainty Calculation for CMCs JCRB 8/9(3) 2. Date and place of the ninth and tenth JCRB meetings 9th JCRB 3 (Wed) and 4 (Fri) October 2002, at the BIPM, Sevres, France 10th JCRB 3 (Mon) and 4 (Tue) March 2003, at Tsukuba, Japan (tentative) NMIJ/AIST expressed their desire to host the 10th JCRB at Tsukuba, Japan, in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the National Metrology Institute (former NRLM) in Japan. During and after the 8th JCRB meeting, the JCRB chairman discussed some important documents. 1) Statement in a Calibration Certificate 2) End of transition period of CIPM MRA - REVIEW OF PUBLISHED CMCs 3) Selection criteria for the technical reviewers and assessors of the national metrology institutes Requirements for the technical peer reviewers were also proposed. ¡ Calibration Certificate Statement This certificate is consistent with the capabilities included in Appendix C of the MRA drawn up by the CIPM. Under the MRA, all participating institutes recognize the validity of each other's calibration and measurement certificates for the quantities, ranges, and measurement uncertainties specified in Appendix C (for details see http://www.bipm.org). Note: In making a French version, it became clear that in French it is necessary to be more explicit than in English. The corresponding longer English version is as follows. This certificate is consistent with the calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs) that are included in Appendix C of the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) drawn up by the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM). Under the MRA, all participating institutes recognize the validity of each other's calibration and measurement certificates for the quantities, ranges, and measurement uncertainties specified in Appendix C (for details see http://www.bipm.org). ¡ End of Transition Period of CIPM MRA - Review of Published CMCs During the transition period, many NMIs are participating in comparison programs and establishing their quality systems. Thus, CMCs published during this period are based on fulfilment, as far as possible, of the criteria given in the Document JCRB-8/13 (1b) "Criteria for acceptance of data for Appendix C." For convenience these criteria are copied below. 1)NMIs that have not yet taken part in key or supplementary comparisons are required as a minimum to have traceability of their national standards established through calibration by an NMI that has established its degree of equivalence through participation in the key comparison programs; they must also have participated in some bilateral comparisons in addition to meeting the other criteria listed here. 1. Results of key and supplementary comparisons.1) 2. Documented results of past CCs, RMO, or other comparisons (including bilateral comparisons). 3. Knowledge of technical activities by other NMIs. 4. Active participation in RMO projects. 5. Appropriate measurement procedures and equipment. 6. Scientific and technical qualifications of staff. 7. Other available knowledge and experience. 8. Brief description of quality systems existing or being prepared. 9. Any peer assessment, third party accreditation or self declaration, including the name of the accreditation body,membership of a multilateral agreement or arrangement, scope of accreditation, and names of peer reviewers. Following the end of the transition period of the CIPM MRA, i.e., after 31 December 2003 (see Document JCRB-8/13 (1)), CMCs submitted for publication on the BIPM MRA website will be required to have, as their basis, evidence of fulfilment of all of the criteria listed above in points 1 to 9. At its 8th Meeting in March 2002, the Joint Committee of Regional Metrology Organisations and the BIPM (the JCRB) agreed that a process is required to ensure that CMCs that have already been published based on the criteria applicable during the transition period are still acceptable under the stricter criteria coming into force after the transition period and, if not, that they undergo another review (or are withdrawn from the database). Previously published CMCs are acceptable after the end of the transition period (i.e., no further review is required), if they are supported by all of the criteria listed above in points 1 to 9. By 1 August 2003, RMO-JCRB representatives will be asked to tell the JCRB Chairman which of their RMO's published CMCs that have not met the stricter criteria coming into force after the end of the transition period and what action the RMO proposes to take to address this, such as a) resubmission of the CMCs with new supporting evidence, to be re-evaluated via the JCRB CMC review process or b) withdrawal of the CMCs from the database. This is also the date by which RMOs must inform the JCRB Chairman if they require additional evidence after the end of the transition period to support CMCs of another RMO that have already been published. The JCRB Chairman will then notify the originating RMO of these requirements. In these cases, the originating RMO must inform the JCRB Chairman by the date of the JCRB meeting prior to the end of the transition period which option ((a) or (b)) above it proposes to take to address this requirement. When CMCs require additional review and an RMO chooses option (a) above to address this, the RMO-JCRB representative is responsible for ensuring that the CMCs, with supporting evidence, are resubmitted to the JCRB Chairman no later than the date of the JCRB Meeting just prior to the end of the transition period. This evidence will then be considered in a new review of the CMCs through the JCRB CMC review process. Voting on approval of these CMCs is to be completed no later than 31 December 2003. If the CMCs are not approved at that time, the originating RMO will be required to take further corrective action. Alternatively, if an NMI wishes to withdraw previously published CMCs at the end of the transition period, the RMO-JCRB Representative must inform the JCRB Chairman by the date of the JCRB Meeting just prior to the end of the transition period. All actions relating to published CMCs that are to be amended in any way will be tabled by the JCRB Chairman at the JCRB Meeting prior to the end of the transition period. ¡ Definitions of Terms Used in the CIPM MRA PUBLISHED BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF REGIONAL METROLOGY ORGANISATIONS AND THE BIPM (JCRB) Calibration and Measurement Capability2) The term Calibration and Measurement Capability (CMC) as used in the CIPM MRA is defined below. The CMC is the best measurement capability that is ordinarily available to customers under normal conditions,3 for example, as published in an NMI's service list and available, in principle, at any time. It should be 1. performed according to a documented procedure and an established uncertainty budget under the quality system of the NMI, 2. performed on a regular basis, and 3. available to all clients. This is also stated in Paragraph T.7 of the CIPM MRA's Technical supplement: "... The calibration and measurement capabilities referred to in this paragraph are those that are ordinarily available to the customers of an institute through its calibration and measurement services; they are sometimes referred to as best-measurement capabilities."
Delegates to the 8th JCRB
1)NMIs that have not yet taken part in key or supplementary comparisons are required as a minimum to have traceability of their national standards established through calibration by an NMI that has established its degree of equivalence through participation in the key comparison programs; they must also have participated in some bilateral comparisons in addition to meeting the other criteria listed here. 2)Based on "Report of JCRB ad hoc Working Group on CMC Uncertainties" (Document JCRB-8/9) and "APMP Proposals on Uncertainty Calculations for CMCs" (Document JCRB-8/9(3). 3)Note: This does not include the NMI's capability to measure the very best instruments.