WORK PROGRAMME

of the TC 2 in the field of Legal Metrology for 2004 – 2005

TC no. / Project no. / Project title / Coordinator of
the project / Participants / Suggested
starting date / Remarks

SC 2.1 Liaisons with OIML, ROs, and NMIs

2.1.1
/ - / Formulation of suggestions on harmoni-zation of COOMET Recommendations with relevant documents of OIML and ISO / TC 2 Chairman / Russia,
Belarus / 2004 /
scope yet to be defined
2.1.2
/ - / Analysis of cooperation projects proposed by international and regional organizations on legal metrology and formulation of suggestions on joint work on these projects /
TC 2 Chairman
/
Russia,
Belarus
/
2004
/ Proposed du-ring 5th TC 2 meeting, scope yet to be defined
307/RU/04 / The analysis of the cooperation projects within the frame of APLMF and preparation of proposals for cooperation of COOMET with this RMO in the field of Legal metrology / Mr. A. Satanovsky (VNIIM, Russia)
/ Russia,
Belarus,
Slovakia / 2004

SC 2.2 Software Requirements and Testing

2.2.1 / 213/BY-a/00 / Development of a Recommendation on software testing for measuring instruments / M. Shabanov
(BelGIM, Belarus)
/ Russia, Germany, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldova / 2003 / in progress (details see Minutes as of May 1st, 2004)
SC 2.3 Harmonization of metrological regulations and norms
2.3.1
/ 167/RU-a/98
/ "The analysis of materials of national registers of measuring instruments and nomenclatures of instruments to be subject to commodity circulation" /
Mr. Y. Lukashov VNIIM, Russia, (interim)
/ Russia,
Ukraine
/ possibly to be incorporated into project 208/UA/03 Interim Report by Mr. Lukashov
2.3.2
/
206/RU/00
/ Analysis of legal documents in the field of metrology for working out suggestions on their harmonization /
Mr. B. Markov, KSSRIM, Ukraine
/ Russia,
Moldova, Belarus / 2003 / Interim Report by Mr. Lukashov
2.3.3
/
208/UA/03
/ Developments of COOMET Recom-mendations regarding contents of bi-lateral agreements on mutual recog-nition of test results and certificates of initial verification of measuring instru-ments
/
Mr. Juri Machekhin, KGNIIM, Ukraine
/
Ukraine,
Russia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Bulgaria
/
2003
/
Interim Report
by Mr. Lukashov
2.3.4
/
297/RU/04
/ Development of Recommendations on general requirements of systems for assuring conformity of measuring instruments to the approved type /
Mr. Lukashov, VNIIM, Russia
/
Belarus, Moldova
/
2004
/
Project concept attached
SC 2.4 Technical competence assessment of verification laboratories
2.4.1 / - / Harmonization of organizational and technical requirements to verification (including environments, personnel and verification procedures) /

Russia,

Moldova

/ 2003 / Proposed.
It is suggested to base on ISO IEC 10012-1, 10012-2, 17025
2.4.2
/ 298/RU/04
/ Development of Recommendations for carrying out initial verification in the framework of QMS of a manufacturer / Mr. Lukashov, VNIIMS, Russia
/

Russia,

Belarus,

Moldova

/ 2004
/ Project concept attached
2.4.3 / - / Development of harmonized procedures and document layouts used to prove traceability of working measurement standards to primary standards while maintaining reliability of verification results. / B. Markov (HGNIIM,
Ukraine) /

Russia,

Moldova

/ 2003 / Proposed.
It is suggested to base on ISO IEC 10012-2, 17025

Conception

of the works fulfillment on project 298/RU/04

“Development of recommendations for carrying out initial verification in the framework of Quality management system of a producer”

As noted in OIML MD 27 there are internal and external aims of quality maintenance:

-quality maintenance within organization aims to assure confidence to general quality management;

-external quality maintenance aims to make confidence atmosphere under conclusion of contracts with clients as well as under carrying out other types of interaction with potential partners.

At the same time all the forms of quality control and operations on quality maintenance are interrelated. If the requirements to quality are not completely reflect consumers needs, quality maintenance can’t provide sufficient level of confidence.

One of the barriers on the path to the measurements instruments trade between countries are lack of recognition of the initial verification or calibration of measuring instruments. The situation is complicated also by that of verification and calibration spheres in different countries are not agreed. So, establishment of unified or at least similar requirements to metrological characteristics of measuring instruments and acceptable for all interested parties conformity confirmation procedure to these requirements would created basic for signing two- and multilateral agreements of the recognition of initial verification and calibration results.

Suggested the following plan of works:

  1. To discover the schemes of conformity confirmation of measuring instruments to fixed requirements, accepted in different countries – members of COOMET;
  2. To pick out those schemes of conformity confirmation, that acceptable for the majority of countries;
  3. To determine the requirements to the system of initial verification (calibration) and to the system of quality maintenance in organization, harmonized with OIML MD 27 and ISO 17025.
  4. To develop recommendation on recognition procedure of verification (calibration) of measuring instruments, which can be used for individual firms as well as on preparation and signing of two- and multilateral agreements on mutual recognition of verification (calibration) results. In the latter case for the basic can be accepted corresponding recommendations of OIML and the experience of signing analogous agreements between countries-members of COOMET.

Conception

of the works fulfillment on project 297/RU/04

“Development of recommendations on general requirements of system for assuring conformity of measuring instruments to the approved type”

Now, acting or developing a great number of OIML documents, relating as principal as well as methodical issues of metrological control organization. To this number can be attributed: MD 3 “Conformity of measuring instruments to legal requirements”, MD 20 “Initial and following verification of measuring instruments and measuring processes”, MD 27 “Initial verification of measuring instruments, using manufacturer quality system”, MD 9 “Metrology supervision principles”, MD 16 “Principles of providing metrology control”, “Applying statistical methods for the control of measuring instruments in legal metrology”, “Conformity assessment”, “Software in legal metrology”.

Suggested the following plan of works on development recommendations to general requirements for the system of conformity confirmation of measuring instruments to approved type:

  1. Analysis of acting OIML and ISO documents, regulating works, related to conformity confirmation of measuring instruments to approved type:
  • to pick out the main types of works and recommendations on it implementation;
  • to assess compatibility of requirements of different documents to the composition and implementation of separate types of works;
  • to discover possible doubling of requirements of different documents;
  1. To assess the degree of conformity of national documents in countries-members of COOMET to OIML and ISO documents;
  2. To pick out general positions, realized in all or majority of countries;
  3. To develop the draft of unified recommendation on conformity confirmation of measuring instruments to approved type.

It’s should be noted the essential interrelation of these 2 proposed projects as well as these projects with such projects as “Development of COOMET Recommendations regarding contents of bilateral agreements on mutual recognition of test results and certificates of initial verification of measuring instruments”, “Harmonization of procedural and technical requirements to verification (including requirements to personnel, environments and verification procedures)”, “Development of harmonized procedures and documents layout necessary for proving traceability of measurement results from national measurement standards to ordinary measuring instruments and assuring reliability of verification results”.