Report on Conformity to Type (CTT): CIML Item 10.4 Presented to: 46 th CIML Meeting Prague 13 Oct 2011 Presented by: Stephen O’Brien – CIML Member Manager,

Report on Conformity to Type (CTT): CIML Item 10.4

Presented to:46th CIML Meeting Prague 13 Oct 2011

Presented by:Stephen O’Brien – CIML Member Manager, Measurement and Product Safety ServiceMinistry of Consumer AffairsNew Zealand

CTT - Background• Conformity to Type (CTT) issues and concerns

considered within OIML for sometime

• 45th CIML resolved to organise CTT Seminar

• These Seminars were an opportunity to discuss and identify potential way forward for CIML consideration at today’s meeting:

– CTT(I) – Utrecht 29,30 June 2011– CTT(II) – Prague 10 October 2011

• Thank seminar organisers, speakers and participants

Utrecht CTT Seminar: CTT(I)• Held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, 29th and

30th of June 2011

• Attended by 43 delegates. Good cross section of representation

• Day 1 – Seminar speakers with a variety of perspectives

• Day 2 – Panel discussion, identification and analysis of critical issues

Utrecht CTT(I) – Key Points

• From global perspective CTT has many complexities

• CTT important for on-going confidence in OIML certification systems

• Regulators need assurance that production instruments are consistent with OIML type

• Manufacturers need ‘level playing field’

• Pre-market CTT needed to incentivise compliance by introducing potential to get caught

• Prevent ‘dumping’ non-compliant instruments

Prague CTT(II) – Key Points• Follow-up CTT Seminar held on the 10 Oct

2011

• Attended by approximately 70 participants

• The seminar was recorded and will be transcribed

• Presentations and comments of participants during seminar used to inform future work

Prague CTT(II) – Key Points

• Considered Utrecht Seminar report• Reviewed IEC Conformity Assessment and

the UNECE International Model • Identified how the content and quality of

OIML certificates and documentation could be improved (to support CTT)

• A draft definition of OIML CTT was discussed and refined into a scope for CTT activity – incorporated into CIML resolution

Action for Consideration: 1

• CIML resolution is drafted to formally assign responsibility for CTT to the work programme of an OIML Technical Committee.

(Consideration and clear direction need to be

given to where this work is assigned)

Action for Consideration: 2

• CIML resolution is drafted to formally request this Technical Committee to develop a guidance document on Conformity to TypeDocument intended to:– to reference current CTT programmes in the US and EU–identify ‘best practice’–inform future global development work in this area.

Where to Assign CTT?

• It remains for the CIML to consider and decide where this work is assigned and completed

• CTT has overarching implications for all instrument categories and for both the MAA and Basic certificate systems

• US and Australia have previously indicated a willingness to take on secretariat responsibility to complete this work

Where to Assign CTT? 1. Current Technical Committee:

– TC 3/SC 1: Pattern Approval and Verification Secretariat – United States

– TC 3/SC 5: Conformity assessmentSecretariat –United States

2. New Technical Committee – TC 3/SC 6: Conformity to Type

Secretariat - BIML and / or other economy to be confirmed

Where to Assign CTT?

• Discussions at the Prague Seminar - unable to unanimously decide on a TC recommendation

• The Seminar participants were asked for an informal indication of their preferences

• Not a representative sample of CIML Members

• Results are only for your information

Where to Assign CTT?

1. New TC or Existing TC:20 to 9 in favour of Existing TC

2. TC 3/SC 1 Pattern Approval and Verification or TC 3/SC 5 Conformity Assessment:

11 to 9 in favour of TC 3/ SC 1

In Conclusion

It still remains for the CIML to consider and decide on the proposed draft resolutions and where this work should be assigned.

I appreciate the CIML’s attention and consideration of these matters.

Thank you for your attention

(Discussion and Review of Draft resolutions)