Meeting of the Chairpersons of the
Electricity and Magnetism Technical Committees of the RMOs
BIPM, 3 November 2003, h 9:00 – 12:00
RMOEM 03-09
p. 1/2
END OF TRANSITION PERIOD OF CIPM MRA –
REVIEW OF PUBLISHED CMCs
During the transition period, many NMIs1 are in the process of participating in comparison
programs and establishing their quality systems. Thus, CMCs being 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. Results of key and supplementary comparisons.2
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. Quality system existing or in preparation, brief description.
9. Any peer assessment, third party accreditation or self declaration, including the name of the
accreditation body; membership of a multilateral agreement/arrangement; scope of
accreditation; 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 the criteria listed above under points
1-9, with special emphasis on the following points:
A. With respect to Criterion 1, it is the on-going responsibility of the Working Group on CMCs
within each Consultative Committee to monitor the results of key and supplementary
comparisons and provide a written report to the JCRB in the case that these results affect
published CMCs. The relevant RMO representative to the JCRB transmits this report as
appropriate within its RMO. It is the responsibility of the NMI providing the CMCs to notify
the KCDB Coordinator in order to undertake appropriate action. Such action may involve
increasing the uncertainties of CMCs or withdrawing CMCs. The relevant RMO will keep
the JCRB informed of the status of such CMCs.
In this document all references to “NMIs” also include “designated institutes”.
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
2
Meeting of the Chairpersons of the
Electricity and Magnetism Technical Committees of the RMOs
BIPM, 3 November 2003, h 9:00 – 12:00
RMOEM 03-09
p. 2/2
B. With respect to Criterion 8, after the end of the transition period, CMCs published in the
KCDB must be supported by a Quality System. The JCRB, at its 11th Meeting, decided
that it is the responsibility of the RMO representative to the JCRB to provide the JCRB
Chairman by 5th April 2004 with a comprehensive report on the status of the Quality System
of each member NMI, following the “JCRB Guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of
the operation of Quality Systems by RMOS” [Doc –JCRB-10/8(1c)]. It is in consequence the
responsibility of each NMI to provide its RMO with the appropriate information regarding its
Quality System to enable the RMO to meet the deadline of 5th April 2004. In its report to the
JCRB Chairman, the RMO shall state the range of CMCs covered by the Quality System and,
for those CMCs that are not adequately covered, shall provide a reasonable timeframe by
which these will also be covered. For CMCs that are not adequately covered by a Quality
System, in the absence of notification by the RMO to the JCRB Chairman of a timeframe and
JCRB approval of this timeframe, or in the event that the approved timeframe is not kept, the
CMCs will be withdrawn from the KCDB until such time as the Quality System criterion is
fulfilled.
C. In cases where an NMI has used “provisional” evidence (i.e., not based on the results of key
or supplementary comparisons) to support CMCs during the transition period, it is the
responsibility of the NMI, through its RMO, to provide the JCRB with more substantive
evidence (i.e., based on the results of key or supplementary comparisons) to support these
CMCs as soon as it becomes available. It is the responsibility of each RMO to monitor these
cases.
By 31 December 2003, RMOs must inform the JCRB Chairman if they require additional
evidence after the end of the transition period to support any CMCs of another RMO that have
already been published. The JCRB Chairman will then notify the originating RMO of these
requests. In these cases, the originating RMO must inform the JCRB Chairman by 5th April
2004 what action it proposes to take to address the issues raised.
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 end of
the transition period.
All actions relating to published CMCs that are to be amended in any way following the end of
the transition period should be tabled at the 2nd meeting of the JCRB in 2004.