Décisions du JCRB : Résolutions, recommandations et actions

The JCRB welcomed the invitation from the COOMET region to hold the 49th meeting in week 39 (beginning 22nd September ) of 2025 in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

The JCRB approved the inclusion of a note at the end of section 5.2 of document CIPM MRA-G-13 addressing the automatic 3-week extension when RMO TC/WG Chairs do not declare interest on the KCDB web platform and/or relinquish their right to review a CMC.

The JCRB noted two forms developed by the JCRB Executive Secretary. The JCRB requests RMOs:

• to encourage CMC Writers to make use of the CMC checklist before submitting CMC claims for Intra-Regional review.
• to use the revised form for the nomination of Designated Institutes.

The JCRB Executive Secretary was requested to send a list of comparisons older than 5 years to the CCs and RMOs that are overseeing them. The JCRB requests the CCs and RMOs to review the status of each of their comparisons in this category and to report to the 49th meeting of the JCRB on the cause of the delays and the actions they will take to address the delays.

The JCRB supported the request from EURAMET to provide open-access to information about the confirmation of CMCs including the technical evidence used and the dates of confirmation. The JCRB requested EURAMET to develop a detailed proposal including an outline timetable for implementation for consideration at the 49th JCRB.

The JCRB recalled its previous decision (JCRB/32-2 of 2014) that a second JCRB meeting should only be held in any year when it is considered necessary. The 48th meeting will be held in week 38 (beginning 16th September) of 2024 at the BIPM.

The JCRB requests the RMOs to encourage all member NMIs and DIs to register with the Research Organization Registry (ROR) (ror.org) to facilitate the BIPM in using the RORs as digital references for them.

The JCRB recalled that each RMO can approve each CMC before it is published and has the opportunity to indicate whether it will review a CMC or not. The CMC review process is tied to the deadline of the latest review date indicated by an RMO. The JCRB requests the RMOs to respond promptly even if they do not plan to review, and to remind Reviewers that agreeing to carry out a review of a CMC but not completing the review causes delays to the CMC review process.

The JCRB noted that there are sometimes multiple iterations of comments between reviewers and writer during the JCRB review. The JCRB encourages:

• the RMOs to ensure that the intra-RMO review is always carried out thoroughly so that points of detail are resolved before the JCRB review,
• the CC WGs on the CIPM MRA and RMO TC/WGs to consider providing a mechanism to exchange comments during the JCRB review in a way that is transparent, and
• the sharing of best practice between CC WGs on the CIPM MRA for efficient JCRB review.

The JCRB Executive Secretary and the KCDB Office will review and improve the guidance materials relating to the use of the column “CMC comments” for example by providing “pop-ups” on the KCDB platform.

The 47th meeting of the JCRB will be held in Costa Rica (Laboratorio Costarricense de Metrología); tentative dates are the week 18-22 September 2023.

Noting the availability in the KCDB of a unique and persistent identifier for each CMC (and each version of a CMC), the JCRB recommends use of these CMC identifiers by the participating NMIs/DIs (for example in their quality documentation) and asks the BIPM Headquarters to make available appropriate training material to encourage this.

The JCRB asks each RMO to nominate (one or two) RMO coordinators for the “Young metrologists’ 2050+ vision” foresighting exercise and to send their names to C. Kuanbayev (BIPM) by 31st March 2023.

The JCRB noted that the RMOs have progressed successfully with a mix of in-person, online and hybrid periodic reviews of quality management systems of the institutes in their regions. The JCRB encouraged the RMOs to further develop these review routes and keep to the 5-year review period. Exceptionally, where this is not possible, they may extend the validity of these QMSs subject to a case-by-case evaluation by the RMO concerned. This extension of validity shall be for a period not exceeding one year. The power to grant such extensions will be re-evaluated at the time of the 46th meeting of the JCRB.

The JCRB noted that the RMOs have submitted reports to the JCRB on the status of the quality management systems of the institutes in its regions using a variety of different formats and content. The JCRB reminded the RMOs that the expected content is outlined in CIPM MRA-G-12 Section 5. To simplify the reporting obligation, the JCRB requests the JCRB Executive Secretary to draft a template and to circulate it to all RMOs for their comments in 3 months’ time.

The JCRB requests the Executive Secretary to upload proposed draft changes to CIPM MRA-G-13 onto the JCRB site, and requests that the RMOs review these minor changes, with a view to approving the revised text at the 45th meeting of the JCRB.

The JCRB requests the Executive Secretary to include an agenda item for the 45th meeting of the JCRB regarding the validity of RMO-approved quality management systems, to coincide with the end of the extension period granted at the 43rd meeting.

The JCRB requests the Executive Secretary to include the possibility of up to two additional observers from each RMO when issuing the convocation for future online JCRB meetings.

Due to the continuing effects of the global pandemic on travel and workplace accessibility, the JCRB allows the RMOs to extend the validity of RMO-approved quality management systems for one year if it is not possible to develop sufficient confidence in reviews carried out online, in person or a combination of both. The JCRB will revisit this topic at its 44th meeting.

The JCRB agrees that GULFMET fulfills all requirements described in CIPM MRA-P-12 Appendix B, section B1, and recommends the CIPM to admit GULFMET as a full member of the JCRB, with a voice and the right to vote.

Following the finalization of EURAMET.RI.32.2019 on the JCRB CMC website, the JCRB Executive Secretary shall close the site for all other users except “tcguest”. Upon closure, the JCRB CMC website will remain available but not linked from the BIPM website.

The ad hoc Task Group established in Action 41/1 to submit its proposal (with tracked changes) to the published version of CIPM MRA-G-12 and related changes CIPM MRA-P-11 to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 15 April. The JCRB Secretary will circulate to all RMOs for comment by 15 June. The ad hoc TG to prepare a consolidated proposal for submission to the JCRB no later than 15 August.

The Task Group established in Action 42/3 will prepare a short paper which proposes specific changes to CIPM MRA-G-11 and provides justification for each change that explains how the operation of the MRA will be improved. The paper shall be sent to the JCRB Executive Secretary before 30 April for circulation to the RMOs. Comments from the RMOs on the report will be requested by 15 July to allow the Task group to prepare a consolidated proposal by 15 August for submission to the 44th JCRB meeting.

The JCRB requests the JCRB Executive Secretary to incorporate the two minor editorial changes to CIPM MRA-P-11 and CIPM MRA-G-13 and publish them on 31st March. Versions of the documents with tracked changes will be circulated to the RMOs for information.

All RMOs to communicate to M. Dobre the email addresses of contact persons in order to exchange information on digital transformation by the end of March.

(Confirmed by post-meeting correspondence 13 December 2020)

The suite of documents approved in resolutions 42/3 and 42/7 will come into effect on 11 January 2021. Concurrently, CIPM MRA-D-02, CIPM MRA-D-04, CIPM MRA-D-05, CIPM MRA-D-06, CIPM MRA-G-01, CIPM MRA-G-02, CIPM MRA-G-03, CIPM MRA-G-04 and CIPM MRA-P-01 will be withdrawn.

(Confirmed by post-meeting correspondence 13 December 2020)

The CIPM MRA-G-11, CIPM MRA-G-12 and CIPM MRA-G-13 documents are approved.

The 43rd meeting of the JCRB will take place in Sèvres, France during the week beginning 15^th March 2021. In case a physical meeting cannot be held, an online meeting will be organized on the same dates.

The JCRB CMC website shall close no later than 2021-06-30. The final date will be decided at the 43rd JCRB meeting.   

Due to the effect of the global pandemic on travel and workplace accessibility, the JCRB approves an extension until June 2021, for all RMO-approved quality management systems set to expire in calendar year 2020, if needed. The JCRB will revisit this topic at its 43rd meeting.

(Agreed by correspondence)

The CIPM MRA-P-11, CIPM MRA-P-12 and CIPM MRA-P-13 documents are approved.

(Agreed by correspondence)

The 42nd JCRB meeting will be held in a series of daily on-line meetings 8 – 10 September, 11:00 to 13:00 (UTC).

Agreed by correspondence

Considering the restrictions imposed in response to the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, the end of the transition period to 17025:2017 as decided in JCRB resolution 39/3 is extended from 30 November 2020 to 1 June 2021.

A Task Group will initiate a technical review of the statistical criteria in guideline CIPM MRA-G-11, and report and propose recommendations at the 43rd meeting of the JCRB.  The Task Group will be led by Antonio Possolo (SIM-NIST) and should have representation from each RMO (1 or 2 members from each).

The term of the ad hoc Task Group established in Action 41/1, to formulate a proposal regarding the reporting requirements and associated process related to the JCRB actions to establish confidence in each RMOs QS review process, is extended until the 43rd meeting of the JCRB. The latest date for submitting the proposal to the JCRB is 11 February 2021. The task group is charged to launch its first virtual meeting by 10 October 2020.

The task group may also discuss considerations and impacts of any special measures, such as virtual reviews and approvals, taken to address restrictions imposed due to the global pandemic.

The membership is updated to include Georgette Macdonald (convenor), Noha Khaled, Lerato Ntatamala, Kazuaki Yamazawa, Yang Ping, Nino Mikanadze, Kai Stoll-Malke, Julien Vuillemin-Toledo, Asma Al Hosani and Sally Bruce.

RMOs shall work with their TCs to review the status of RMO KCs and SCs that have not been completed in 5 years (as listed in the KCDB report) and report to the 43^rd meeting of the JCRB.

UPDATE of Resolution 41/1: Following a request from the CIPM President and other CIPM members participating in the JCRB to re-consider the dates of the 42nd JCRB meeting, an e-mail enquiry was held amongst the RMOs. Five RMOs supported the proposal and consequently Resolution 41/1 was revoked on 13 December 2019. The 42nd meeting of the JCRB will take place in Sèvres, France 12-13 March 2020.

The 43rd meeting of the JCRB to take place week 37, 2020 in Bogota, Colombia. The JCRB Executive Secretary will collaborate with the Instituto Nacional de Metrología de Colombia (INM) and SIM to host it following the 42nd JCRB meeting.

The 42nd meeting of the JCRB will take place in Sèvres, France 10-11 March 2020.

UPDATE: See Resolution 41/3

APMP to send its revised guidelines for the operation of Hybrid Comparisons to the next meeting of the JCRB.

An ad hoc Task Group {Georgette Macdonald, Noha Khaled, Kazuaki Yamazawa, Nino Mikanadze, Kai Stoll-Malke, Asma Al Hosani} is established to formulate a proposal for consideration at the 42nd meeting of the JCRB regarding the reporting requirements and associated process related to the JCRB actions to establish confidence in each RMOs QS review process. The proposal may include recommendations related to the informal meeting of RMO QS review representatives and updates to CIPM MRA-G-02 'Guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of the operation of quality systems by RMOs'. The latest date for submitting the proposal to the JCRB is 11 February 2020.

The 42nd meeting of the JCRB to take place in Sevres, France week 11, 2020.

The 41st meeting of the JCRB will take place during 9-11 September 2019 in Dubai (UAE) with the QMS discussion meeting in advance of the plenary. The JCRB Executive Secretary will collaborate with the Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology (ESMA) and GULFMET to host it and confirm the timing of the meeting by the end of April.

The JCRB agrees that the Hybrid Comparison scheme proposed by APMP may be used as an example of "Other available knowledge and experience" in Section 3 of CIPM MRA D-04, which underpins CMCs. It was noted that the use of Hybrid Comparisons is not an alternative to participation in key or supplementary comparisons when accessible. It was also noted that it is not intended to include Hybrid Comparisons within Appendix B of the KCDB. This agreement is to be sent to the CIPM for approval in order to expedite communication to the Consultative Committees.

Following Resolution 39/2, the BIPM will finalize arrangements with the SIM QSTF Chair for the review of the BIPM QMS (by the end of April 2019).

BIPM to review existing JCRB documents for guidance relating to CIPM MRA participants that wish to cease their involvement in the CIPM MRA, and to prepare a summary and a proposal (if necessary) to be presented to the 41st JCRB.

JCRB Chair to consult the CCQM and CCRI Presidents and then write to request the EU-JRC to clarify whether their intention with respect to the CIPM MRA is to cease participation or to re-instate their CMCs.

In order to support the restructuring of the CIPM MRA document suite, the JCRB Delegate from each RMO will assign a person to support the review of the drafts by 31 March 2019.

The JCRB decides that the informal QMS meeting after the 40th JCRB be open to all JCRB members and that minutes be taken for any recommended actions for the next JCRB. Any future QMS discussion meetings will take place before the JCRB as further preparation for the formal QS items as an integral part of the plenary agenda.

The date and location of the 41st meeting of the JCRB will be decided at the 40th meeting, noting that the Emirates Authority for Standardization and Metrology (ESMA) has offered to host it in Dubai (UEA) in week 37 of 2019.

The 40th meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 13 and 14, 2019 at Sevres, France. The meeting will start in the morning of March 13, 2019 and will last two days with the end of last day at 16.00. The JCRB Executive Secretary will collaborate with the RMO TCQ Chairs to collocate an informal meeting amongst them.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM MRA Guidance documents be updated to reflect the transition period agreed by the JCRB for the adoption of ISO/IEC 17025 and ISO 17034.

The JCRB, noting the publication of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ISO 17034:2016, and their importance to the CIPM MRA, decides that the RMOs shall ensure that all NMIs and DIs declaring CMCs within the CIPM MRA shall have demonstrated the conformance of their quality management systems to the above standards (in so much as they are applicable to the CMCs of the NMI or DI), no later than three years after the publication date of the standards.

The JCRB thanks EURAMET for the work of the EURAMET TC-Q in receiving presentations of the BIPM Quality Management System (QMS) from 2014 to 2018 and welcomes the offer of SIM to allow BIPM to present its QMS to the SIM QSTF from 2019 to 2023.

The JCRB welcomes the efforts made by BIPM in realising the Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer (CBKT) programme and encourages its further implementation. Furthermore, the JCRB supports the proposal to include those CBKT activities that directly support the effective and efficient operation of the CIPM MRA as core activities within the next BIPM work programme, and encourages the BIPM and the RMOs to develop a framework approach for the delivery of capacity building activities.

The BIPM to circulate a questionnaire to each participant in the 39th JCRB to obtain feedback on the logistics and organization of the meeting.

Each RMO to provide the JCRB Executive Secretary with information on the date and place of upcoming TCQ Meetings. The JCRB Executive Secretary to collate this information and share with RMO TCQ Chairs.

Each RMO will complete two sheets (doc 39/05.2) summarising progress with addressing the recommendations from the review of the implementation of the CIPM MRA. They will be sent to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 30th April 2018.

Each RMO will send the name of a person responsible for capacity building activities in their region to C Kuanbayev at BIPM together with a short description of the RMO's vision for capacity building activities both at the regional and the JCRB levels (by 30th April 2018). BIPM will circulate a summary of the responses to the JCRB.

The 40th meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 2019. The exact days and place for the Meeting will be determined later.

The 39th meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 14, 15 and 16, 2018 at Sevres, France. The meeting will start in the morning of March 14, 2018 and will last three days with the end of last day at 16.00.

RMOs and CCs are encouraged to further implement a risk-based approach to review of CMCs and to develop statements for the levels of CMCs for which an intra-RMO review may be sufficient for the purposes of international acceptance.
Taking note of the needs of NMIs and DIs at all levels, as a means towards implementation of recommendation 3b of the CIPM MRA review, the JCRB encourages Consultative Committees and the BIPM to continue to explore means to allow NMIs and DIs to publish CMCs in the KCDB for only their smallest uncertainty capabilities that are then used to support related services covered by their approved Quality System. Proposals are requested as to how to show the link between these capabilities and the "representative " CMCs. RMOs are encouraged to propose additions to the Quality System review process to effect a fit-for-purpose review of these capabilities.

The JCRB requests the CIPM to invite representation from the JCRB to take part in meetings of the CC Presidents in order to encourage communication between the JCRB and the CCs.

Following the lessons learned during the work using the RACI analysis tool, the JCRB proposes to progress towards the development of a strategy and action plan.
The JCRB requests a working group consisting of Alan Steele (Chair), Toshiyuki Takatsuji, Andy Henson, Beat Jeckelmann, Wynand Louw, Mohammed Al Mulla, Pavel Neyezhmakov and Willie May to engage with the CIPM and subsequently develop some questions and draft text to initiate discussion at a one-day working session to develop both the strategy, and consequent actions at the extended JCRB Meeting in March 2018.

The decision whether to hold a JCRB meeting in September 2018 will be taken at the 38th meeting of the JCRB in September 2017 (noting that the CGPM will be held in the November 2018). If the meeting is held then this 40th meeting of the JCRB will take place during week 37 (the week beginning September 10, 2018) and will be hosted in Dubai by GULFMET.

The 39th meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 14 and 15, 2018 at BIPM.

The 38th meeting of the JCRB will take on September 13 and 14, 2017 at Bern, Switzerland. The meeting will start in the morning of September 13 2017 and will last two full days if warranted by the Agenda items, otherwise for a full day and a half.

JCRB approves the proposed changes to the suite of JCRB documents, primarily to update the references from ISO Guide 34 replacing them with ISO 17034 (following the publication of that standard in November 2016), and including a number of minor corrections, and instructs the BIPM to update and publish the guidance documents accordingly.

The JCRB agrees with the proposal made by the BIPM that in KCDB 2.0 the range and uncertainty should, if possible, be in a numerically searchable format, noting that this would require the transform of existing CMC data and charges the BIPM to continue work on developing KCDB 2.0.

The JCRB charged a task group (comprising Claudia Santo (convener), Beat Jeckelmann, Peter Manson, Zakithi Msimang, and Toshiyuki Takatsuji) with collating the ideas around the possibilities of “broad-scope CMCs” such that they can be considered by the CCs.

BIPM to propose amendments to CIPM MRA-D-01 “Rules and procedures for the JCRB ” to better reflect that the JCRB Terms of Reference require it to work by consensus, which is the norm modus operandi, and that voting is only used when consensus cannot be achieved.

GULFMET to make available their guidance documents on QS and CMC review from their website and to provide a link to BIPM so it can be included on JCRB webpage (according to JCRB Action 30/2).

The 37th meeting of the JCRB will take on March 15 and 16, 2017 at the BIPM. The meeting will start on the afternoon of March 15 and will last a full day on March 16.

The JCRB charged a task group (comprising Claudia Santo (convener), Beat Jeckelmann, Peter Manson, Zakithi Msimang, and Toshiyuki Takatsuji) to prepare a draft document reviewing "best practices" in formulation and submission of CMCs, to be distributed prior to the 37th JCRB meeting in March, 2017.

The JCRB welcomes the proposal made by the BIPM and charges the BIPM to progress to the next stage of developing KCDB 2.0.

The JCRB charged a task group (comprising Alan Steele (convener), Peter Fisk, Andy Henson, Beat Jeckelmann, Wynand Louw, Mohammed Al Mulla, and Pavel Neyezhmakov) to prepare a draft RACI analysis of the MRA Review Working Group recommendations, based on the JCRB Strategic Approach to the MRA Review (JCRB working document JCRB-36/05.1). The draft RACI analysis to be distributed to the JCRB prior to the 37th JCRB meeting in March, 2017.

The JCRB charged a task group (comprising Alan Steele (convener), Peter Fisk, Andy Henson, Beat Jeckelmann, Wynand Louw, Mohammed Al Mulla, and Pavel Neyezhmakov) to develop a presentation for the 2016 NMI Directors Meeting, of the JCRB response to the CIPM MRA review. The presentation to be based on the JCRB Strategic Approach to the MRA Review (JCRB working document JCRB-36/05.1).

The JCRB Executive Secretary will review current membership of the WG-RMO (or the equivalent designation) within each CC, and provide the list of members to the JCRB.

The 37th meeting of the JCRB will take place during the week beginning March 13, 2017 at the BIPM, on days to be decided.

The 36th meeting of the JCRB will take place on September 14 and 15, 2016 at KEBS, Nairobi, Kenya.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to revise Point of Clarification 6 to CIPM 2005-06(REV); the revision to include the text of JCRB Resolution 34/1 regarding measurement comparison reports.

The RMOs to remind TC and WG chairs of the requirement stated in CIPM MRA-D-04 to submit, at the beginning of the inter-RMO review, the confirmation that the QMS evidence supports the CMC set, and to consider how this will be embedded in the update to the KCDB/JCRB IT suite.

The KCDB will retire the use of the pop-up survey on the usage of the KCDB website.

The JCRB charged a subgroup (comprising Claudia Santo (convenor), Beat Jeckelmann, Toshiyuki Takatsuji and Zakithi Msimang) to prepare a draft position paper on the feasibility of "broader scope" CMCs for discussion at the next meeting of the JCRB.

The JCRB charged a subgroup (comprising Alan Steele (convenor), Peter Fisk, Beat Jeckelmann, Pavel Neyezhmakov, Wynand Louw, Mohammed Al Mulla and Andy Henson) to prepare a draft position paper on its response to the MRA review for discussion at the next meeting of the JCRB.

The BIPM to ask RMOs about the availability of materials to support the involvement of NMIs from countries and economies with emerging metrology systems in the work of the CIPM MRA.

The BIPM will identify possible metrics that might measure the quality of the intra-regional CMC reviews carried out by each RMO.

The BIPM to present a draft scope for the update to the KCDB/JCRB IT suite to the next JCRB meeting.

The RMOs to include an update on strategic planning with respect to KCs and SCs undertaken at the RMO TC level in their reports to the JCRB.

The JCRB approved the revision to CIPM MRA-D-05, "Measurement comparisons in the CIPM MRA" and the BIPM will inform the CIPM of the revision.

The BIPM will delete the listings of non-signatory and non-designated participants of comparisons that currently appear in the drop-down menus of the KCDB (recalling that all participants will continue to be listed in the comparison reports).

GULFMET is encouraged to register their comparisons (except those used for training purposes) in the KCDB and is reminded of the guidance on comparisons given in CIPM MRA-D-05, particularly section 5.1, regarding linkage between CIPM and RMO key comparisons.

The 36th meeting of the JCRB is notionally scheduled for week 37, September 13 and 14, 2016. The decision as to whether to hold the meeting and its location will be made at the 35th JCRB meeting.

The 35th meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 16 and 17, 2016 at the BIPM in Sevres.

The policy for reporting comparisons that involve non-signatories to the CIPM MRA is clarified according to the following text:
"Measurement comparison reports should be written to reflect the experiment that was actually performed, including summary results from all participants. These reports should be accessible from the online Key Comparison Database, but the graphs and tables of equivalence explicitly shown should include results only from signatory NMIs and DIs.
The results for non-signatory participants should be considered as evidence of metrological competence for any future CMC submissions in the event that the laboratory becomes a signatory to the CIPM MRA.
Note: This would not apply to laboratories participating in a measurement comparison under less stringent rules than the signatory laboratories (e.g. as a 'pilot study' participant for a measurement comparison in chemistry)."

The BIPM to look at the current practice within the KCDB website of listing non-signatory participants in comparisons, identifying how extensive the practice is, and establish the feasibility of rectifying inconsistencies within the website should the JCRB recommend a consistent and retroactive policy of website listings (either always list the non-signatory participants or never list the non-signatory participants).

The BIPM will review procedural documents of relevance to publishing reports of comparisons involving non-signatory participants, and draft proposed changes to those documents to be reviewed at the 35th JCRB meeting (revised policy stated in Resolution 34/1).

The BIPM to alert the CC presidents and CC executive secretaries of Resolution 34/1 which revises the policy for publishing results of comparisons involving participants who are non-signatories to the CIPM MRA.

The BIPM will investigate the programming burden related to providing customized deadline alert dates to RMO reviewers of CMCs. The specific request is to add a one week reminder prior to the deadline date for submitting the review, in addition to the present three week reminder.

RMOs to establish mechanisms to identify potential candidates to participate in the BIPM CBKT training program on "leaders of tomorrow" (scheduled for late 2016) and "a sound beginning" (scheduled for 2017) aimed at training metrologists in leadership and implementation roles in global metrology.

SIM will identify, by March 2016, an NMI within its region to work with the BIPM in developing a poster for World Metrology Day for 2017.

Each RMO will review their RMO/BIPM webpages and provide updated information where necessary to the JCRB Executive Secretary by March 1, 2016.

The 35th meeting of the JCRB is scheduled for March 16 and 17, 2016 at the BIPM in Sevres.

The 34th meeting of the JCRB will take place on September 8 and 9, 2015 at KazInMetr, Kazakhstan.

SIM volunteered to identify an NMI within its region to work with the BIPM in developing a poster for World Metrology Day for 2017.

COOMET volunteered to identify an NMI within its region to work with the BIPM in developing a poster for World Metrology Day for 2016.

The JCRB approved the new document "Designated Institutes participating in the CIPM MRA: Expectations and nomination form" and the BIPM will send the document to the CIPM for information.

The JCRB approved the revision to CIPM MRA-G-03, "Guidelines for the review of Quality Systems operated by IGO institutes and/or designated institutes, and the review of their calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs)", and the BIPM will inform the CIPM of the revision.

The JCRB approved the revision to CIPM MRA-D-02, "Use of the CIPM MRA logo and certificates statement", and the BIPM will inform the CIPM of the revision.

In preparation for the October 2015 CIPM MRA review workshop, the RMOs will prepare a common presentation on behalf of the JCRB panel. This presentation will summarize shared views on the challenges for the sustainability of the CIPM MRA, and a range of responses proposed by different RMOs with their practical ideas for improvement. AFRIMETS will coordinate preparation of the presentation by collating input from the RMOs.

The BIPM KCDB office, as part of the KCDB report to the JCRB, to identify Key and Supplementary Comparisons which were started 5 or more years ago and have not reached a conclusion.

AFRIMETS to update their QS review documents (which are linked from the BIPM website).

In order to facilitate the JCRB Chair in writing to the CIPM to recommend the granting of provisional acceptance of GULFMET as an RMO (within the meaning of the CIPM MRA), the JCRB decided to invite a GULFMET delegation to attend the 34th JCRB meeting to present:
- evidence including a roadmap and timetable for how they plan to address criterion 5 of CIPM MRA-P-01, section 3;
- some wider context about their role as an RMO within the region;
- the scope of capabilities of NMIs within their RMO;
- and their plan for engagement with NMIs within other RMOs.

The JCRB will return to the issue of publication of results of non-signatory participants in Supplementary Comparisons and RMO Key Comparisons at the 34th JCRB. SIM, who raised the issue, will prepare a paper on the concerns and proposed actions to be distributed to the JCRB Executive Secretary one month prior to the 34th JCRB, for posting on the JCRB working documents webpage.

RMOs will monitor the JCRB CMC website and contact appropriate TC chairs, regarding loss-of-right to vote on a CMC set due to either: not indicating they will review; not submitting a review for which they had indicated yes; or submitting a late review for which they had indicated yes.

RMOs will monitor the JCRB CMC website and contact appropriate TC chairs regarding CMC sets that have been in the status of "review still in progress" for two years or more.

The BIPM to review with the CIPM the process of the BIPM providing annual updates on its QMS between its formal presentations of the BIPM QMS (made at 5 year intervals to the RMOs on a rotating basis).

The 34th meeting of the JCRB is scheduled for September, 2015 at the KazInMetr, Kazakhstan.

The 33rd meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 18 and 19, 2015 at the BIPM.

Two JCRB meetings will be scheduled each year. A decision will be made on a "case by case" basis as to whether the second meeting is necessary. Rotation of the meetings between BIPM and regions will be decided accordingly.

There will not be a meeting of the JCRB in late 2014 (because of the logistics and workload related to the 25th CGPM).

Each RMO to provide an official representative to the NMI Directors Workshop on CIPM MRA review.

Noting that the RMOs indicated that they either already have a dedicated webpage (EURAMET) for training or are in the process of creating such page (AFRIMETS, APMP, COOMET, SIM), the BIPM will propose to the DCMAS Network to include the appropriate links on their website. Furthermore BIPM will enquire whether it is possible for them to make "training" more visible on the website. RMOs to provide the JCRB Executive Secretary with appropriate links as soon as they become available.

EURAMET to collaborate with the BIPM to produce a generalized version of the paper "Role of DIs within the CIPM MRA" for wider use by the other RMOs and for possible adoption by the JCRB.

EURAMET to update their paper "Role of DIs within the CIPM MRA" taking due account comments received internally and from other RMOs for use internally within the EURAMET. BIPM to check that the revised EURAMET paper is consistent with CIPM MRA rules and practices.

Each RMO to individually contribute to the CIPM MRA review by highlighting the successes and challenges for them and their stakeholders, and suggest practical ideas for improvements in the operation of the activities falling within the responsibility of the JCRB. To facilitate collation of the information the RMOs will attempt to follow a common format. To enable development of the format each RMO should send its ideas for line items to A. Steele by beginning of June 2014. A. Steele will propose a draft common format to the RMOs for comments by the end of June 2014. The final completed discussion document to be submitted by each RMO to the BIPM by the end of 2014 for discussion at the 2015 JCRB meeting.

CIPM MRA: Each RMO to prepare bullet points identifying, from their perspective, the benefits and the successes of the CIPM MRA. The intention is to eventually combine these into a single presentation to be made at the CGPM as an introduction to the Draft Resolution to be presented at the 25th meeting of the CGPM on the CIPM MRA. It is envisaged that the common points will be compiled and supplemented by RMO specific perspectives (one slide per RMO). BIPM will add introductory statistics, and the presentation will conclude with progress already made towards a sustainable CIPM MRA and as an introduction to the Draft Resolution.

RMOs to coordinate and send the common and RMO specific bullet points to the BIPM (JCRB Executive Secretary) by the end of May, 2014 so that the presentation can be discussed at the June meeting of the CIPM bureau.

BIPM to provide a list at each JCRB meeting of Associates of the CGPM who have been encouraged to become a Member State of the BIPM (in accordance with Resolution 4 of the 24th meeting of the CGPM).

BIPM to consider launching two (or one combined) questionnaire(s) related to the KCDB using the "pop-in" software addressing:
-"Why users are accessing the KCDB?" and
-"How easy (or not) it was to find the information?"

BIPM to collate the comments related to problems with, or desired changes to, the CIPM MRA review from the CCs strategy documents and CCQM questionnaire, which will be later complemented by the feedback from Action 32/6 in order to provide useful and collated input to the JCRB and the NMI Directors Workshop on the CIPM MRA review.

AFRIMETS has volunteered to identify an NMI within its region to work with BIPM and BIML in developing the World Metrology Day poster for 2015.

The JCRB agrees on the proposed additional text to the guidance document CIPM MRA-D-02 (which a further suggested text amendment) in response to the request of the CIPM bureau regarding the use of the CIPM MRA logo on certificates/reports that include a statement of conformity. The text clarifies that the CIPM MRA logo attests only to the measurement component of such certificates/reports. The JCRB Chairman to inform the CIPM on the clarification.

The JCRB Chairman to inform the CIPM of the changes to the form "Nomination of a Designated Institute" whereby in future the starting date of participation in the CIPM MRA will be considered as the date on which the BIPM receives the designation form.

JCRB Executive Secretary to update the document CIPM MRA-G-03 for consideration at the next JCRB meeting by adding an additional option whereby the IGO may elect to work through one or more regions (on behalf of all other regions) for review of the QS and intra-regional review of the IGO's CMC declarations.

BIPM to write to GULFMET thanking them for the 2013 progress report and welcoming the progress made. The letter should also include useful advice on key elements/activities that would increase the confidence of the metrology community as GULFMET strives to be as an RMO within the meaning of the CIPM MRA.

The JCRB Chairman to inform the CIPM that the CIPM MRA documents requiring revisions related to minor editorial and format changes and updating of internal cross references approved by the JCRB will be brought to the CIPM for information.

BIPM to amend the "Key and supplementary comparison registration and progress" form, so that the status "Protocol complete" reads "Protocol complete/approved".

The 32nd meeting of the JCRB will take place on March 26 and 27, 2014 at the BIPM.

The JCRB approves the proposed form for the nomination of designated institutes (subject to two editorial improvements) and requests it be approved by the CIPM. (The editorial changes are: to allow space for the name of a legal entity for a DI, when necessary, and moving the listing of metrology areas to the footnote).

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve changes to the guidance document CIPM MRA-D-04 by adding the new Section "12. Greying-out of published CMCs".

RMOs will review the status of stalled CMCs on the JCRB website and will advise the JCRB Executive secretary whether stalled CMC sets can be abandoned, or whether the RMO will progress the set. (RMO secretaries can track the status of CMCs on the "RMO actions pending" page (http://www.bipm.org/JCRBCMCs/CMCsStatus.jsp) of the JCRB website in order to avoid CMCs stalling in the inter-regional review process).

BIPM to investigate the feasibility of introducing a "pop-up questionnaire" into the KCDB to obtain information about the origins of enquirers (e.g. is the visitor to the KCDB from an NMI, industry, a calibration laboratory etc).

RMOs to each submit the name of an individual to contribute on their behalf to the development of the EURAMET paper "Towards a sustainable CIPM-MRA". Names to be submitted to the JCRB Executive Secretary within two weeks. This extended paper to be developed by EURAMET and submitted to the 32nd meeting of the JCRB where it will be an agenda item.

RMOs to submit comments, if any, on the EURAMET document "Role of DIs within the CIPM-MRA" within one month, in order that EURAMET can improve the document for possible wider use.

BIPM to develop an electronic format for the form "Key and supplementary comparison registration form" in order to improve the accuracy and consistency of the information relating to KC status on the KCDB.

In order to decrease the time taken for the inter-RMO review of CMCs, the JCRB resolves to revise CIPM MRA-D-04 as follows:

• The time to indicate "intention to review" will be reduced from 6 to 3 weeks (with a reminder after 2 weeks);
• The deadline for submission of the RMO review report will be made a "hard deadline" (with a reminder 3 weeks before);
• The deadline for approval of CMCs will be reduced from 6 to 3 weeks (with a reminder after 2 weeks).

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve minor changes to CIPM MRA documentation (updating the references, cross references and resolving minor inconsistencies) as presented in JCRB-30/08.1. The changes relate to the following documents:

• CIPM/2005-06REV;
• CIPM MRA-D-02;
• CIPM MRA-G-01;
• CIPM MRA-D-04;
• CIPM MRA-D-05.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM regularly monitors the status of Key Comparison reports in order to minimize the number of reports experiencing significant delays.

The JCRB recommends that RMOs pay greater attention to the appropriate guidelines during intra RMO review in order to improve the efficiency of the inter RMO review of CMCs.

The JCRB recognizes the maturity and effectiveness of the CMC review process and the degree of trust established between the RMOs. Consequently, the JCRB strongly recommends that duplication, resulting from RMO reviewing the same CMCs during interregional review, be reduced wherever possible.

The JCRB strongly encourages the CCs and the RMOs to use the BIPM Web Forum as a tool for effective information exchange and consider increased use of the "fast track" to promote more rapid processing of CMCs.

The JCRB Executive Secretary to write to NIM (China) to confirm the venue for the 31st JCRB meeting (September 18-19, 2013) and to advise RMO representatives to the JCRB accordingly.

The RMOs to submit papers addressing the two agenda items listed in Action 30/3 for circulation one month prior to the 31st JCRB meeting.

The JCRB Executive Secretary will place the following items on the agenda of the 31st JCRB meeting:
- The performance and vitality of DIs;
-What is the purpose of the KCDB? What is its impact on NMIs and stakeholders? Who uses it and what are its successes?

The RMOs should make available their guidance documents on QS and CMC review from their websites.

The JCRB Executive Secretary will develop text on "greying-out CMCs" and reinstating "greyed-out CMCs" for CIPM MRA-D-04 for approval at the next meeting of the JCRB.

The 31st meeting of the JCRB will be hosted by NIM (China) on September 18-19, 2013

The 30th meeting of the JCRB will begin on the afternoon of March 19, continuing for a full day March 20, 2013, following the Workshop on Best Practices in CMC Reviews, which will be held on March 18 and the morning of March 19, 2013.

The JCRB resolves that, whilst the expectation and routine practice is that NMIs will participate in repeats of relevant comparisons supporting CMCs organized by CC or RMOs, it is not within the remit of a CC to initiate the greying-out CMCs where an NMI has not participated.
It is the responsibility of the RMO TC for QMS review to establish the continued validity of all published CMCs covered by the quality system, taking into account all supporting technical evidence, including participation in comparisons. If the TC for QMS review is not satisfied that a particular CMC remains valid then it initiates the process of greying out the CMC in question.

The JCRB does not endorse the CCL's proposal to change the expression of uncertainty from a numerical value equation to a quantity value equation for CMCs published in the KCDB.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve changes in Section 9 of the document CIPM MRA-D-05 amending the procedure to monitor the impact of comparisons.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve changes to document CIPM MRA-G-01 that involve the updating of references to other CIPM MRA documents.

RMOs will provide papers on issues faced during the CMC workshop by the end of January 2013 to the JCRB Executive Secretary who will develop a summary document that will be circulated to participants by the end of February 2013.

The following will be incorporated into the agenda of the Workshop on Best Practices in CMC Reviews as objectives:

• To help reduce the resource and time required for the review of new and modified CMCs, whilst not compromising their integrity, and
• To improve communication and the sharing of knowledge between all involved within the processes of review of CMCs and necessary quality system review, by
  • Learning how the (5) RMOs undertake their tasks
  • Learning how the (9) CCs undertake their tasks
• To agree actions/recommendations to disseminate/adopt and implement the "best practices" / opportunities for further efficiencies identified".
• (If time permits), to extend the scope of the above with a session addressing "re-review".

A. Henson will attend at the AIC meeting to be held in Rio de Janeiro in October 2012 and continue to represent the JCRB views on relevant topics with ILAC.

The JCRB executive secretary will change the procedure for monitoring the impact of comparisons detailed in document on CIPM MRA-D-05 to include a provision for addressing communications related to inconsistencies between comparison results and published CMCs to the Quality TC/WG of the RMO to which the NMI in question belongs. The JCRB chairman will present the changes to the CIPM for approval.

The JCRB chairman will inform the RMO Quality TC/WG and the RMO Chairperson of the issue raised by the CCL WGMRA related to inconsistencies between a NMIs comparison results and its published CMCs and request timely feedback on the matter.

The KCDB office will provide information to the JCRB on the status of comparisons whose results are not yet available in the KCDB.

The 30th meeting of the JCRB followed by the Workshop on Best Practices in CMC Reviews will take place at the BIPM between March 18 and 20, 2013.

The 29th meeting of the JCRB will take place at at NIST on September 25 and 26, 2012.

The JCRB resolves that the QMS that must be in place prior to the acceptance of CMCs must be according to ISO/IEC 17025 (and ISO Guide 34 for CRMs) in line with requirements for calibration laboratories.

The JCRB resolves that laboratories should only be designated under the CIPM MRA when they have responsibility for national measurement standards and the dissemination of the units (i.e. providing traceability), as demonstrated by provision of appropriate and relevant services to customers.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve changes to the text of Section 7.2 of document CIPM MRA-D-05.

At the 29th Meeting of the JCRB, RMOs will propose topics to be discussed within the brainstorming session that is to be on the agenda of the planned Workshop on Best Practices in CMC reviews.

APMP TCEM Chair I. Budovsky will propose that the CCEM WGRMO consider the issue of splitting EM CMC declaration files by category at their next meeting.

The KCDB manager will split the CMC files made available on the JCRB CMC review website for use in the CMC declaration and review process by category within the areas of Mass and Ionizing Radiation and will explore the possibility of doing the same for other areas in consultation with the relevant Consultative Committee working groups.

The KCDB manager will prepare a short document on the proposal to develop a web platform for the input and sharing of CMC declarations for review, outlining requirements and issues to consider, for presentation at the 29th meeting of the JCRB.

A letter will be sent to GULFMET summarizing JCRB's position on their application to join the JCRB as an RMO. A GULFMET delegation will be invited to join the 29th meeting of the JCRB as guests to discuss the next steps forward.

Resolutions 28/1 and 28/2 adopted by the JCRB will be incorporated into the BIPM procedure on the registration of new designated institutes and the letters that are sent to newly designated institutes as part of that procedure.

CCPR's new policy requiring NMIs to participate in repeats of comparisons that were used to support CMCs will be reviewed by the BIPM for compliance with the terms of the CIPM MRA. The CCPR policy will be discussed at the 29th JCRB meeting.

The JCRB view on the change to expression of uncertainty being considered by CCL will be presented at the next CCL meeting. The outcome concerning the change will be reported at the next JCRB meeting.

The 29th meeting of the JCRB will take place at NIST on September 25 and 26, 2012.

The 28th meeting of the JCRB will take place at the BIPM, beginning at 13:00 on April 3 and continuing full day on April 4, 2012.

The JCRB resolves that the CMCs of those institutes removed from Appendix A will automatically be deleted from the KCDB.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve changes to CIPM MRA-D-05.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM adopt the draft guidelines on the authorship of comparison reports subject to the inclusion of SIM comments.

The JCRB recommends to the CIPM to approve the BIPM ILAC Joint Communication on the Accreditation of NMI Services.

The BIPM international liaison officer will explore the possibility of adopting PTB Guide 6 as a BIPM document.

The BIPM will prepare a draft document on expectations from DIs for active engagement in the CIPM MRA (declaration of CMCs, participation in RMO activities) using the input provided by EURAMET at the meeting, in time for the next JCRB meeting.

The BIPM International Liaison Officer and the Executive Secretary of the JCRB will work to obtain information on the fields of designation of all DIs listed in Appendix A and report on the progress of such work at the next JCRB.

The CMCs of RMTC of Latvia will be permanently deleted from the KCDB due to the fact that it is no longer the designated institute for Latvia in the field of ionizing radiation.

RMO representatives will remind the chairs of the technical committees/working groups of the importance of observing the established instructions for modifying existing CMCs as stated in document CIPM MRA-D-04.

The JCRB agrees to hold the 28th Meeting of the JCRB on March 21-23, 2012 at the BIPM in Sevres.

The JCRB approves the procedure for the deletion of the greyed-out CMCs after a period of 5 years. The procedure shall be put into effect beginning in April 2011.

The JCRB agrees to give the mandate to the TC-Q of EURAMET to conduct the QS review of the IAEA at their next meeting in March 2012. JCRB supports the decision of IAEA to have the review of their quality system conducted at the next meeting of the TC-Q of EURAMET. The JCRB further agrees that there will be no consequences in so far as the continuing validity of IAEA's published CMCs due to the delay in the review beyond the 5 year limit

RMOs will send their comments on the proposed guidelines for authorship of key and supplementary comparison reports to the CIPM Secretary.

The JCRB acknowledge that although the meeting do not foresee at present the possibility to suggest to the CIPM a new RMO in the Arabic region in the framework of the CIPM MRA due to the present shortage of Members of the BIPM and Associates of the CGPM within the proposed entities as well as an insufficiency of general knowledge of RMO issues, there is a need to further the knowledge of the role of such a RMO. The JCRB therefore asks AFRIMETS to proceed with their offer that their membership will be requested to allow the Arab countries outside Africa to participate in the activities of AFRIMETS, as an interim measure.

The BIPM International Liaison Officer will present the main points of the deliberations put forward by the RMOs concerning the text of the draft Joint ILAC BIPM Communication on the Accreditation of NMI Services at the next AIC meeting. Developments will be reported at the next JCRB meeting by the International Liaison Officer and the Director.

The BIPM International Liaison Officer would advise ILAC of serious concerns but different views within JCRB concerning the wording within ILAC Document P10 on Traceability.

BIPM to send request to the designating authority upon notification of a new Designated Institute for information on scope of designation, stating that the information of the new DI will not be published on the BIPM website unless such information is received. The BIPM will advise any new participants in the CIPM MRA regarding expectations concerning their active participation in the activities of the CIPM MRA. Such information will also be made available on the BIPM website.

A brainstorming session will be held on the second day of the 27th Meeting of the JCRB in September 2011, in order to clarify the specifics (scope, agenda, intended outcomes, participants, etc.) of the planned workshop on CMC review practices with a view towards holding the workshop in conjunction with the 28th Meeting of the JCRB in March 2012. In preparation for this session, RMOs are to collect information on the CMC review practices within their TCs and BIPM will collect information on the CMC review practices of Consultative Committees.

The Director of the BIPM will propose to the CIPM that the CIPM task RMOs to review the QMS of the BIPM and to make comments and recommendations, with approval of the BIPM QMS remaining the responsibility of the CIPM. The BIPM would rotate the presentations of its QMS among RMOs.

The next meeting of the JCRB will be held: March 21 (9:00 to 17:00) and 22 (9:00 to 13:00), 2011, at the BIPM.The following meeting will be held on September 14-15 (two full days), 2011, organized by EURAMET.

The information concerning the publication of documents in the JCRB open website will be published in the KCDB newsletter and mailed to the technical contacts of the RMO.

To create a task group to discuss criteria to be fulfilled as designated institutes. The group will be chaired by M. Chambon, and W. Louw, Y. Hino, and P. Neyezmakov. SIM will send the name of the representative to the chairperson.

For CMCs greyed out for more than 5 years, the process for deletion will be:
- when the 5 year period is reached a reminder will be sent by the BIPM (JCRB Executive Secretary) to the RMO and the NMI;
- a second reminder will be sent three weeks after;
- if there is no reply in three weeks, the CMCs will be deleted from the KCDB and a confirmation will be send to the RMO and NMI.

The JCRB recommends the CIPM the approval of the following documents:

• Interlaboratory Comparisons in the CIPM MRA (CIPM MRA-D-05) - Compilation of existing procedures and policy documents (new versions) (DOC 25.13.1),
• CIPM MRA-D-04 - Inclusion of traceability policy + periodic review of CMCs (DOC 25.13.2), (with the correction proposed by SIM on Section 5),
• CIPM MRA-G-02 - Inclusion of the 5 year period for the review of QS. (DOC 25.13.3)

The BIPM to prepare a draft program for a "Workshop on the best practice for the review of CMCs" to be presented in the next meeting.

After approval of the documents to be submitted to the CIPM, the RMOs should actively draw the attention of their TC chairs and members, to the documents and the importance of their full implementation. The Executive Secretary will prepare a covering letter.

The Executive Secretary will distribute the file with the information of the participation of the DIs in the CMCs and the RMOs will report back in the March 2011 meeting.

The Chairman will draft a letter in response to the complain received from Fluke.

BIPM to take the position of having a joint document for "Accreditation of NMIs" to the next AIC meeting.

Review document CIPM-G-03 according to what was expressed in the meeting.

To delete all EURAMET CMCs that have been greyed out for more than five years.

The BIPM to arrange with IAEA the details for QS review meeting taking into account the points expressed by the delegates.

The JCRB recommends the BIPM to continue working in the ILAC AIC committee in relation to the document "Accreditation of NMIs".

The NMIs will include the status and actions related to greyed out CMCs in their annual reports.

CMCs that have been greyed out for more that five years will be permanently deleted from the KCDB. The procedure will be discussed in the next JCRB meeting.

Reports from the BIPM to the JCRB March meetings will include a summary of the status of the QS associated with its calibration and measurement services.

The JCRB recommends that the following policy is included in CIPM MRA-G-02. The initial and periodic presentations of the QS of DI to the corresponding QS review panel of the RMOs, must be done directly by the responsible person of the DI and not through its NMI. In the same sense, the QS annual reports must be also prepared and submitted directly by the DI.

The Executive Secretary will circulate new drafts of documents CIPM MRA-D-04, CIPM MRA-D-05 by mid-April. The RMOs will send their comments by end of June.

EURAMET will establish its position in regards of the character of the document on "Accreditation of NMIs", whether this should be an ILAC or joint ILAC - BIPM document and report back in the next JCRB meeting.

The JCRB further notes that RMOs are moving to a common position in which on-site peer reviews are best practice, but that in some cases the RMO's policies are still under discussion. The RMOs will report on state on their internal discussion in the next meeting of the JCRB.

The Executive Secretary and the KCDB coordinator will explore the possibility of establishing a system for monitoring the time of greyed out CMCs.

Executive Secretary to prepare a template for the annual QS reports from the RMOs.

RMOs will send their procedures related to the review of the QS to the BIPM by end of the May.

JCRB Executive Secretary to circulate the document related to the QS review of IGOs (CIPM MRA-G-03) among the RMOs.

The Chairman of the JCRB will contact IAEA for:
- establishing a date for the review of the IAEA QS;
- defining needs for on site peer review;
- suggesting IAEA to attend the regular meetings of RMOs Quality Systems review committees;
- current position of IAEA to support people to attend the review.

The next JCRB meeting will be hosted by BIPM, March 16-17 2010, preceded by the RMOs - RCAB meeting on March 15. The following meeting will be hosted by Egypt, AFRIMETS, September 21-22 2010.

The BIPM will take the following position to the AIC meeting:
- ILAC policy for estimation of Uncertainty – The document is not necessary;
- Accreditation of NMIs - A clear purpose of the document must be established before continuing the work and sending comments on the text;
- ILAC policy for traceability - Continue the work strengthening the use of the KCDB to ensure that the CMCs of an accredited laboratory are consistent with the CMCs of the NMI to which it claims traceability.

The RMOs will present a report of the activities on the QS Working Groups to the JCRB every two year (next presentation, March 2011).

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM the approval of the document Interlaboratory Comparisons in the CIPM MRA (CIPM MRA-D-05), with the modifications proposed in the meeting and agreed by correspondence.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM adopts the following policy for traceability in context of the CIPM MRA.

The Executive Secretary will circulate the final draft of document CIPM MRA-D-05. RMOs will send final comments by October 3.

The delegates will report to their respective RMOs the discussion on the JCRB about the need for maintaining periodic on site peer reviews and report back to the JCRB in the next meeting.

The RMOs will consider the issues related with the participation of private companies in comparisons carried out under the CIPM MRA, and bring a position for the next JCRB meeting.

After approval in SIM, SIM will present to the JCRB the procedure for appealing decisions of the QSTF.

The JCRB recommends that the BIPM participates in the preparation of the ILAC guide for accreditation of NMIs.

The JCRB noting that: - its statement about a five year review period for CMCs may have been misinterpreted, - that RMOs review of quality systems occurs every five years, and - that recently it was introduced a system of annual reports from NMIs in which NMIs report any changes which may affect CMCs, resolves that: the periodical review of published CMCs is performed by the RMOs and recommends that RMOs review the templates used for these annual reports to ensure that NMIs address this issue. The JCRB further notes that in some areas, CCs may wish to make a specific decision on the review period and review procedure which applies to their community.

The Executive Secretary will send an advance copy of the JCRB news section of the KCDB newsletter to the RMO delegates.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM adopts the following policy for traceability in context of the CIPM MRA.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approves document CIPM MRA-P-01, "Procedure for approval of new RMOs".

COOMET will inform the other RMOs and the BIPM about other related activities in the same week of the JCRB meeting.

RMOs will send comments on the ILAC document for accreditation of NMIs.

To modify CIPM MRA-D-04 (including the policies on traceability and re-review period) and circulate it among the RMOs (Executive Secretary). The RMOs will send comments before the end of July. Responsible: Executive Secretary.

The Executive Secretary will produce a new draft version of CIPM MRA-D-05 and circulate it to the RMOs. RMOs will send any comments to the Executive Secretary before the end of July. Responsible: Executive Secretary.

The RMOs will send feedbacks to the KCDB office about the new FAQ facility.

CMCs that do not comply with JCRB Resolution 19/4 will not be greyed-out. The review of the traceability statements of CMCs will be performed by the RMOs in the periodical review of CMCs and QS.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approve AFRIMET as an expansion of SADCMET.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approve document CIPM MRA-P-01, "Procedure for approval of a new RMO".

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approve document CIPM MRA-D-01, "Rules of Procedure for the JCRB", Version 6.

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approve document CIPM MRA-D-04, "CMCs in the context of the CIPM MRA".

The JCRB recommends that the CIPM approve document CIPM MRA-G-01, "Guide to the implementation of the CIPM MRA".

Prepare a guideline with instructions for the declarations of traceability in the CMC submissions. This guideline will be included in a future version of the document "Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the Context of the CIPM MRA" (CIPM MRA – D- 04). Responsible: BIPM.

The BIPM will consult the CCs on the particular procedures used, or proposed, for the re-review of CMCs and report to the next JCRB meeting. Responsible: Executive Secretary.

The RMOs will include the status of their greyed-out CMCs in their reports to the 22nd JCRB.

First 2009 meeting will be hosted by COOMET, who suggested that the meeting be held in March 2009.

Next JCRB meeting: BIPM, Sèvres, France on 24-25 September 2008.

Provide an Agenda item during the 21st meeting to discuss the results of the Forum on Metrology Programmes for States in Development. (Executive Secretary)

Cuban greyed-out CMCs shall be reinstated into the KCDB.(KCDB Office)

Consolidate CIPM MRA documents by category and reformat and number the documents according to the BIPM internal QS procedures. (Executive Secretary)

The document on "How to Welcome New RMOs" will be modified and distributed to the RMOs for comments within 60 days of the meeting. (BIPM)

Bring the discussion on section 7 (as recorded in the Minutes) to the attention of the JTG-RAP. (BIPM)

Modify Recommendation 19/1 per the request of the CCRI WG RMO. (Executive Secretary)

Modify Recommendation 19/4 item 3, removing the word "major". Disseminate Recommendations 19.1, 19.2, 19.3; they should be included in the CIPM MRA guidance document being prepared by the BIPM.

RMOs are to nominate members for the new CCTF WG on CMCs. (RMOs)

(Modification of Action 19/3) The RMO reports to the JCRB will include only a summary of the status of the Quality Systems in their RMO. (This will require a modification of JCRB 18/03.7.) (Executive Secretary)

The second meeting of 2008 will be held at the BIPM in Sèvres, France on September 2008.

The second meeting of the JCRB will be held in Wellington, New Zealand on May 1-2, 2008.

The JCRB thanked Steve Carpenter, Ichiro Fujima and Keith Jones for their services to the Joint Committee.

Ajchara Charoensook, from APMP, is to support the peer-review evaluation of NIS to be conducted by EURAMET on January 2008.

The JCRB praises the accreditation community for their willingness to adopt the term CMC.

NMIs wishing to change the method of evaluation of their quality systems (see CIPM MRA, section 7.3, pp. 35 {English version}) will have a 1-year grace period to make the change. The RMOs are to inform the Joint Committee of such changes in their annual report on the status of the quality systems of their NMIs. Changes requiring more than 1-year to implement will necessitate the temporary removal of the NMI's CMCs from the KCDB.

The JCRB recommends that the Guide to the implementation of the CIPM MRA (JCRB-19/08) shall only quote the essential portions of the CIPM MRA and other policy and guideline documents to improve its readability.

The JCRB recommends the adoption of the new CMC definition with its accompanying notes.

The JCRB recommends that for purposes of publishing CMC in the KCDB the following guidelines on traceability be followed:
1. an NMI taking traceability for the entire calibration of its national standard fromanother laboratory must choose either the BIPM or another NMI signatory to the CIPM MRA having an independent realization of the SI unit or quantity at the appropriate level of uncertainty and having published CMCs in the relevant area;
2. an NMI taking traceability in this way must still make a full assessment of the uncertainties involved in its calibration activity and must openly declare its chosen traceability route when providing its CMCs for regional and inter-regional reviews;
3. NMIs are free to make use of certificates from laboratories appropriately accredited by a signatory to the ILAC Arrangement for calibration of instrumentation, major reference standards, or measurement systems which form part of its national realizations provided that the uncertainty of such calibrations has only a minor influence on the total combined uncertainty of the CMC.

The JCRB recommends that the BIPM quality system should presented to the International Panel on March 2008, following the guidelines outlined in the document Guidelines for the Review of CMCs and the Monitoring and Reporting of the Operation of Quality Systems by International Intergovernmental Organizations Who Are Signatories of the CIPM MRA (CIPM/06-03), and that the International Panel report its impressions to the CIPM no later than 60-days prior to the 2008 CIPM meeting.

The JCRB recommends that the uncertainty statements of the BIPM’s calibration and measurement capabilities should appear more prominently in the BIPM website and in the KCDB.

The JCRB recommends the adoption of a new policy on the reporting of the implications of comparison results on published CMCs.

Distribute the new rules of procedure and collect and consolidate changes for two weeks. (Executive Secretary).

Create a master list of the CIPM MRA related documents using a numbering system similar to that use in the quality manuals. (Executive Secretary).

Make a number of changes to the Guide to the implementation of the CIPM MRA (JCRB-19/08): (Executive Secretary).

Post a revised file for APMP.L.4.2006 in the JCRB CMC Site. (APMP).

Amend the document Suggested Content of RMO Report to the JCRB (JCRB-18/03.7). (Executive Secretary and Luis Mussio).

Keep the status of KC current in the KCDB by sending the latest information to the KCDB Office. It is suggested that the RMOs do this at least prior to each JCRB meeting. (RMOs).

RMO annual reports on quality systems are to be appended to their JCRB reports. (RMOs).

The policy stated in Recommendation 19/4 should be discussed during the 2008 RMO-RAB prior to its recommendation to the CIPM. (Executive Secretary).

RMOs are to nominate members for the new CCTF WG on CMCs. (RMOs).

RMOs are to help LACOMET meet its current needs for comparisons by inviting them to participate in RMO KCs and/or bilateral comparisons as appropriate. (RMOs).

SIM is to inform all other RMOs of the comparisons needs of LACOMET. (SIM).

Inform the CIPM of the new rules of procedure of the JCRB (JCRB-19/09.final). (Chairman).

The policy stated in Recommendation 19/1 is to be included in the flowchart of the key comparison process (JCRB-11/2(a)) available in the open-access documents section of the JCRB website. (Executive Secretary).

The first meeting of 2007 will be held in New Zealand, May 1-2, 2008.

The second meeting of 2007 will be held in Ottawa, CA, September 27-28, 2007.

The action list from the meetings is to be discussed as a final agenda item in each meeting and to be circulated via email within 7 days. The draft report of the meeting is to be sent to the delegates within 30 days. (Executive Secretary).

The JCRB has decided to establish a Working Group to revise its rules and procedures. The following tasks are to be completed:
- RMOs are to suggest issues for consideration to the Executive Secretary by 3 June 2007. (RMOs)
- RMOs are to nominate a member of the new Working Group by 14 May 2007. (RMOs)
- The report of the Working Group should be available 30 days prior to the September 2007 meeting so it might be discussed there in preparation for approval by the CIPM in November 2007. (Working Group).

Reinstate into the KCDB those CMCs from COOMET which have gained COOMET Recognition. (KCDB Office).

Distribute the APMP questionnaire to all RMOs. (APMP).

Make the uncertainty of the measurement services of the BIPM more visible and clearer in the BIPM website and other BIPM publications. (BIPM).

Append a copy of the Request for Designation Information form (JCRB-17/15.1) to the Minutes of the meeting. (Executive Secretary).

RMOs are to develop a process to monitor changes to the CMCs from their NMIs after the results of a comparison. (RMOs).

Complete the document Guide to the Implementation of the CIPM MRA at the earliest possible time. (BIPM).

The Executive Secretary is to circulate that question and gather responses for presentation at the next Committee meeting. (Executive Secretary).

Dr Sacconi is to write a question on the implementation of the uncertainty of the device under test which is to be circulated among the RMOs. (Dr Sacconi).

The Chairman is to re-recommend document JCRB 18-12.2 (formerly document CIPM-06/05) to the CIPM for final approval. (Chairman).

RMOs are to submit annual reports of the operation of laboratories' quality systems in their NMIs and DIs and present them to the JCRB. Those reports are to be annexed to the JCRB report. (RMOs).

The Chairman is to request an annual report on the status of the laboratorys quality system from each of the IGOs participating in the CIPM MRA and report back to the JCRB. Those reports are to be annexed to the JCRB report. (Chairman).

After consulting with ILAC, the Chairman is to recommend the definition in document JCRB-18/09 to the CIPM for final approval with the endorsement of the JCRB. He will also present it to the ILAC Accreditation Issues Committee at its next meeting in May 2007. (Chairman).

When the matter is finalized, the Chairman is to send correspondence to the chairpersons of the CC working groups explaining the origins and implications of the new notes attached to the CMC definition. (Chairman).

The Executive Secretary is to circulate the latest version of the CMC draft definition with explanatory notes. (Executive Secretary).

Make modification requested by Dr Kühne to the minutes of the 17th meeting. (Executive Secretary).

The fall 2007 meeting of the JCRB will be canceled in benefit of preparations for the 23rd CGPM.

Develop more clear guidelines and include them in the minutes. (Executive Secretary, Michael Kühne and Alan Steele)

Investigate why SADCMET.QM.2.2003, EUROMET.RI.2.2001, APMP.QM.4.2004, COOMET.QM.6.2005, APMP.TF.3.2005, EUROMET.AUV.6.2005, and SIM.RI.6.2005 are pending and report back to the Committee at its next meeting. (Executive Secretary)

Modify existing pro-forma (JCRB-7/22) for RMO reports to the JCRB. (Executive Secretary)

Future KCDB reports to the JCRB are to include the information on CMC statistics (per RMO) thus avoiding the inclusion of this information in the RMO reports to the JCRB. (KCDB Manager)

Ask the CIPM Consultative Committees to provide reports to the JCRB with up-to-date information on the status of pending KCs and/or on changes to CMCs in the KCDB due to KC results. (Chairman)

Ask the ILAC membership if the KCDB is providing them with the information needed by the accreditation community. (Chairman)

All RMOs are to extend invitations to their QMS review meetings to the members of the RMOs. (RMO QMS Chairs)

The spring 2007 meeting of the JCRB (18th Meeting) will be held for a day and a half. (Executive Secretary)

All COOMET CMCs currently lacking COOMET Recognition are to be removed from the KCDB. (list of CMCs contained in JCRB-17/17) (Executive Secretary + KCDB Manager)

Modify the Request for Designation Information form (JCRB-17/15.1) to request:
(a) the acronym use by the designated laboratory and
(b) the period of designation. (Executive Secretary)

Continue the definition crafting process via email and conduct a follow-up meeting in the March 2007 at the BIPM. (BMC-CMC redefinition group)

Report to ILAC on the progress made in Nashville by the BMC-CMC redefinition group and on the endorsement of the redefinition process by the RMOs. (Chairman)

RMOs to submit missing QMS acceptance reports in the area of Chemical Metrology to the JCRB. (EUROMET, SADCMET, and SIM)

Review CIPM 2006-03 in light of the comments made by the Committee. (Chairman)

The bios of technical reviewers participating in QMS reviews operating under the umbrella of the process outlined in CIPM 2006-03 are to be provided to the review panel. (IGOs seeking approval of their QMS for purposes of participation in the CIPM MRA)

The KCDB Office is to be advised of any changes in the situation in EIM which might lead to the reinstatement of their CMCs. (EUROMET)

A task group was charted with looking into this issue and deliver a recommendation to the full committee in their next meeting. (Prof. Kühne, Mr Jones, plus volunteers from ILAC, COOMET and SADCMET; lead by Dr Steele)

Request from the Chair of the CCT WG8 a summary of the uncertainties in industrial thermometry CMCs that resulted as a consequence of the CCT WG8 voted recommendations. (Executive Secretary)

In light of the examples provided, ask the CCM if key comparison results available offer appropriate support to the mass CMCs listed in the KCDB. (Executive Secretary via the Executive Secretary of the CCM)

Salvage as much as possible from minutes of the 16th meeting of the JCRB. (Executive Secretary)

The JCRB endorses the flexible-criteria as expressed in JCRB-14/06(2a) and encourages the RMO representatives to inform their Technical Chairs of this decision. The JRCB goes on to remind all that participation in Key Comparisons is obligatory when available – to choose to not participate in a Key Comparisons will result in adverse action against the laboratory choosing not to participate. The JCRB requests that all Key Comparisons (CC and RMO) be notified to the KCDB Office in a timely fashion.

RMOs are to invite Chairs of Technical Committees from other RMOs, as well as the heads of those RMOs, to the meetings of their Quality System review groups. The Chairman and Executive Secretary should also be notified of upcoming meetings.

The CMC definition that appears in JCRB-08/18 is to be supplemented by a paper to be crafted by the BIPM, reviewed by the RMOs, and approved by the CIPM. The purpose of this supplement is to clarify the current definition for the benefit of accreditors.

The frequency of JCRB meetings is to be reconsidered at each meeting.

The Chairman will make every attempt to fast-track the approval of JCRB recommendations by the CIPM. Likewise, and concurrently with the above, the RMO representatives to the JCRB will make every attempt to fast-track the approval of JCRB recommendations by their RMO General Assemblies. If possible, these approval consultation processes will be done using email.

As per the Terms of Reference of the JCRB, the JCRB makes recommendations on the implementation of the CIPM MRA. Those recommendations need to be approved by the RMOs and/or the CIPM prior to becoming policy.

JCRB Recommendations are to be clearly listed in the minutes of all future JCRB meetings.

Decision on what the response of the CIPM MRA should be to problems in the area of Material Metrology.

Decision on re-designation of national laboratories for purposes of the CIPM MRA: (a) no requirement of re-designation; (b) re-designation every 5-years.

The BIPM is produce a paper to supplement the definition of the term CMC that appears on JCRB-08/18 and forward it to the RMOs and CIPM for consideration prior to the 16th meeting of the JCRB.

The RMO JCRB Representatives are to work with the JCRB Executive Secretary to assure that the most up to date information is available on all the Technical Chairs of Working Groups in the regions.

The Chairman is to draft a paper on the pros and cons associated with the use of regional databases to aid local efforts and how their existence might lower the confidence of regulators on the CIPM MRA.

Dr Korostin is to send updated list of COOMET TC chairs to the Executive Secretary.

All RMO Representative are to assure that letters of designation are received by the Director of the BIPM for Designated Laboratories in their region.

The Executive Secretary is to update the JCRB mailing list to reflect changes in APMPs representation and is to maintain Dr Usuda in the mailing list.

The Executive Secretary is to change the CIPM MRA logo which appears in the minutes of the JCRB 14 by the correct one.

The Executive Secretary is to introduce a note onto the minutes of the JCRB 14 to reflect the fact that the end of the CIPM MRA transition period for chemical metrology is December 31, 2005.

The RMOs are to make a small presentation during the next JCRB meeting describing the QS review process in their region.

The Chairman is to send a letter to the Consultative Committees Presidents asking them to stress the need to support CMCs when devising the scope of new Key Comparisons

The Prof. Kühne, Mr Jones and the Executive Secretary are to draft a new version of JCRB-15/09 which strikes a compromise between the positions of APMP and EUROMET. The document should properly reference existing JCRB documents and be sent to the committee for review prior to the next meeting.

The Chairman is to forward guidance on the use of the CIPM MRA Logo to the RMOs prior to the next JCRB meeting.

The Executive Secretary is to correct the minutes of the JCRB 14 to reflect the correct number of the document in Action 14/6 to be JCRB-14/06(3) and repost them in all appropriate sections of the JCRB website.

The Executive Secretary to update the references in document JCRB-14/08(6) and post it in the open section of the JCRB web page.

APMP to modify document JCRB-14/07c according to the discussion at the meeting and send it for comments to the JCRB.

RMO representatives to send comments on Document JCRB-14/07b to Dr. Kühne by 9 June 2005.

The Executive Secretary to post Document JCRB-14/06(2a) in the open section of the JCRB website.

After completion of Action 14/4, the Executive Secretary to post Document JCRB-14/06(2a) in the open section of the JCRB website, replacing the current document JCRB-8/13(1b).

Dr. Kaarls to add a phrase to the last paragraph of document JCRB-14/06(2a) indicating how to assure traceability in the chemical field.

The Executive Secretary to post Document JCRB-14/06(1) in the open section of the JCRB website, replacing the current Document JCRB-7/1.

RMO representatives to send comments on document JCRB-14/11 to Dr. Kühne by 3 June 2005.

The KCDB office to add a note to its website indicating that only the latest version of the CMCs is shown and that further details on the history of a CMC should be requested from the issuing NMI.

Dr. Kaarls to revise Document JCRB-13/09(3) according to the discussion in the meeting.

The Chairman to revise Document JCRB-13/09(2) according to the discussion in the meeting and send it for comments to the members of the JCRB.

The Chairman to revise Document JCRB-13/09(1) according to the discussion in the meeting and send it for comments to the members of the JCRB.

Mr Lam and Dr Kühne to present to the JCRB a proposal on the recommended criteria for the selection of peer-reviewers by the next meeting.

The Executive Secretary to develop a user's manual for the new web page and to release it for operation by 1 November 2004.

RMO Representatives to distribute Document JCRB-13/06(2) to their TC/WG Chairs for comments and forward them to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 3 December 2004.

RMO Representatives to distribute the revised Document JCRB-13/06(1) to their TC/WG Chairs for comments and forward them to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 3 December 2004.

The Executive Secretary to add step f) from Document JCRB-7/1 to Document 13/06(1) "JCRB Rules of Procedure for CMC entry into Appendix C" and to distribute it to JCRB Members.

RMO Representatives to send comments to the JCRB Chairman on the JCDCMAS Background document.

RMO Representatives to send proposals for the design and use of the logo for the CIPM MRA.

RMO Representatives to circulate Document JCRB-13/04(1) to their TC/WG Chairs for comments and forward them to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 3 December 2004.

Mr Lam to redraft his document on QS reviews according to the discussion in this meeting, and present it at the 13th meeting of the JCRB.

EUROMET and SIM to report to the JCRB Chairman on their TC/WG Chairs proposals for a "fast track" approval process, for the improvement of published CMCs within the following six weeks (June 18, 2004).

The Executive Secretary to post Document JCRB-12/06(3) in the open section of the JCRB web page.

The Executive Secretary to post Document JCRB-12/06(2) in the open section of the JCRB web page.

The Executive Secretary to request a modification of the CMC review web page, in order to allow the definition of a different status for old CMC submissions whose inter-regional review has been abandoned.

The Executive Secretary to send a reminder to all TC/WG Chairs that they should keep RMO representatives informed of all actions concerning CMC reviews.

RMO representatives to inform the Executive Secretary if they wish to authorize TC/WG Chairs to communicate directly any RMO decision concerning CMC reviews.

The Executive Secretary to modify the Flow Chart of the CMC Review Process, according to the discussion at the 12th JCRB meeting, and post it in the open section of the JCRB web page.

RMO Representatives to prepare for the next meeting proposals on the design and possible uses of the CIPM MRA logo.

Prof. Wallard to ask JCTLM partner organizations if meeting minutes can be openly distributed.

JCRB Representatives to provide comments on documents JCRB-12/11(1) and JCRB-12/11(2) by the end of July.

The Executive Secretary to coordinate with Dr Kaarls and circulate the latest versions of documents JCRB-12/11(1) and JCRB-12/11(2).

The Executive Secretary to modify the CMC Review Flowchart to indicate that RMOs should review the presence of a fully-compliant quality system before submitting CMCs for inter-regional review.

The Executive Secretary to draft and distribute an Excel file on the status of CMC reviews every month until this report is available on line.

EUROMET is to revise its CMCs EUROMET.M.2.2003 using the Classification scheme proposed by the JCRB Chairman, and to re-submit these to the JCRB Exec Secretary. It is also to clarify the cases where two Service Categories are provided for one CMC, and where a CMC refers to preceding CMCs.

RMO representatives to the JCRB are to send any objections to final approval of the Cycle III Chemistry CMCs to the JCRB Exec Secretary before Friday 10 October. In the absence of any such notifications, these CMCs will be approved on Friday 10 October 2003.

The JCRB Chairman and JCRB Executive Secretary are to draft a statement for consideration by the Committee on what procedure to follow when an NMI provides a unique capability that, therefore, cannot be the subject of comparisons with other NMIs. NOTE: The Statement proposed is as follows: Occasionally, NMIs offer unique calibration or measurement capabilities, whose confidence can not be underpinned by interlaboratory comparisons. The JCRB recommends that, in those cases, experts from other NMIs are asked to review the CMC claim, based on the "Criteria for acceptance of data for Appendix C" (Document JCRB-8/13(1b)).

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to inform the BIPM Web Manager to update the links on the BIPM website to COOMET.

The letter to ISO CASCO and the response will be sent by the Director of the BIPM to NMI Directors.

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to ensure that documents relating to awareness- raising of metrology and the CIPM MRA are distributed to the RMO representatives to the JCRB when available.

At the forthcoming CIPM meeting, the JCRB Chairman is to raise the question of how to develop a coordinated approach to raising awareness of metrology and the CIPM MRA among government and regulatory authority representatives. NOTE: This Action resulted in modifications being made to Resolution 6 of the 22nd CGPM.

JCRB members are to forward suggestions for discussion topics for the 12th meeting to the JCRB Executive Secretary at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. Note: A "Quality Forum"-type Workshop is proposed to be held with the 12th JCRB Meeting, at which "Quality" Chairs from each region, and the BIPM, are to be invited to present progress in their region.

The JCRB Executive Secretary(ies) is to amend Document JCRB-11/8(5), "Supplementary Comparisons – definition", according to the discussion here. T.10 of the Technical Supplement is also to be amended to remove the reference to CCs and the BIPM.

Mr Lam Kong Hong (APMP) is to chair a Working Group to develop appropriate recommended criteria for the selection of peer reviewers for NMIs. The Working Group members are: Prof Bily (COOMET), Prof Kühne (EUROMET), Dr Hengstberger (SADCMET) and Ing Quím Mussio (SIM). A draft set of criteria is to be tabled at the 12th JCRB Meeting.

Prof Wallard will ask ILAC if it could conduct a similar survey within the accreditation community.

The RMO Representatives to the JCRB are to survey the number of special calibrations that are undertaken by member NMIs, based on the calibration certificates issued. The results of these surveys are to be presented at the 12th JCRB meeting.

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to modify Document JCRB-11/8(3a) according to the discussion here.

The JCRB Executive Secretary(ies) is to further clarify this point in Document JCRB-9/12. NOTE: The new version of Document JCRB-9/12 has been posted as Document JCRB-11/7.

The JCRB noted that, as highlighted by the CCRI Working Group on CMCs, provisional evidence that has been used to support CMCs should be considered adequate until such time as the appropriate key and supplementary comparisons have been completed.

The JCRB Executive Secretary(ies) is to revise Document JCRB-9/12 according to the discussion here.

The RMO representatives to the JCRB are to complete these templates and forward their full reports to the JCRB Executive Secretary by 5 April 2004, to be tabled at the 12th JCRB Meeting.

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to notify the Committee when changes are made to the JCRB pages.

The JCRB Executive Secretary is to prepare a template for each RMO to report on the status of coverage of all of their published CMCs by a Quality System, and to forward this template to the Committee by 10 November 2003.

JCRB Exec Secretary is to post Document JCRB-11/7(a) on the "Open-Access" section of the JCRB webpage. Note: The JCRB endorsed Document JCRB-11/7(a), "Proposed JCRB Recommendation re: Monitoring the Impact of Key and Supplementary Comparison Results on CMC Claims".

JCRB Chairman is to write to the Chairman of the CCRI WG on CMCs, responding to the various requests to the JCRB.

The JCRB Executive Secretary is to copy e-mails signalling the posting of new batches of CMCs to TC Chairs, at the same time as they are sent to the RMO representatives to the JCRB.

The incoming JCRB Executive Secretary is to write a procedural document on the CMC review process for the benefit of incoming RMO Technical Committee Chairmen and Convenors.

The JCRB Executive Secretary is to post Document JCRB-8/20, the "JCRB CMC Review Process" in the open-access section of the JCRB webpage.

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to post the final version of the Terms of Reference for CC Working Groups (Document JCRB-11/6(2)) on the JCRB webpage.

The JCRB Chairman is to write to the Chairman of CCT Working Group 8 on CMCs (Dr Martin de Groot) requesting that a report be submitted 3 weeks before the 12th JCRB Meeting providing details of the progress being made to resolve the outstanding issues re: thermometry CMCs and providing a date by which these CMCs will be submitted for inter-regional review.

The JCRB Chairman is to request that the CCM coordinates meetings of the Working Groups in Liquid Density and Fluid Flow to enable cross communication.

The KCDB Office is to provide cross-references in the KCDB section in which Flow services are published to relevant "flow" CMCs in Density and Viscosity that have been published together with the other Density/Viscosity services within the Mass services section.

Comments on the three flowcharts are to be forwarded to the incoming JCRB Exec Secretary as soon as possible. He will then post them with the "Open-access documents" on the JCRB webpage.

The Committee agreed that the Statement referencing the CIPM MRA should only be included on calibration certificates for NMIs' CMCs that are published in Appendix C of the KCDB.

The JCRB Exec Secretary and KCDB Coordinator will forward to RMO-JCRB Representatives some options on broadening the range of the KCDB Search Engines. RMO-JCRB representatives will be asked whether these adequately meet perceived needs of users or whether other options are (also) needed.

The Chairman is to check which RMO Egypt has nominated for its CMC submissions.

Dr Hengstberger is to forward the updated SADCMET report to the JCRB Exec Secretary.

The Chairman is to recommend to the 22nd CGPM that the interpretation of the term "Economy" in Resolution 3 of the 21st CGPM be extended to include economic "entities" such as CARICOM.

A general guidance document describing how linkages have been made between CIPM and RMO key comparisons is to be provided on the KCDB, using existing technical procedures on linkages as examples.

JCRB Chairman and Exec Secretary are to prepare the CIPM Report on the JCRB and to forward this to the Committee and post it on the JCRB website.

JCRB documents that are to be tabled at each meeting are to be submitted to the Executive Secretary no later than one week in advance of the meeting so that they can be made available on the JCRB webpage.

RMO-JCRB Representatives are asked to review Appendix 3 of the Report of the 10th JCRB Meeting and inform the JCRB Executive Secretary at which events attendance by senior BIPM staff is sought.

RMO-JCRB Representatives to prepare presentations on the topic: "How to extend the range of participation of countries in RMO and MRA activities", to be presented at the October JCRB meetings.

The Chairman and Exec Secretary are to draft a document to outline the JCRB's views on the situation when a calibration laboratory claims uncertainties smaller than those claimed in the associated NMI's CMCs published in Appendix C of the KCDB. This document will be tabled for discussion and approval at the next JCRB meeting.

Mr Hetherington is to forward the revised "JCRB Guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of the operation of Quality Systems by RMOs" to the Exec Secretary for posting on the website as a finalised JCRB document.

The JCRB Chairman is to recommend to the CIPM that the words "Consultative Committees" be removed from Para T10 when the CIPM MRA is revised.

The JCRB Chairman is to remove the last sentence in the first paragraph of Section 2 of Document JCRB-10/7, "A note on Supplementary Comparisons".

The JCRB Chairman is to check the types of Supplementary Comparisons that are currently listed in Appendix B of the KCDB, to help define the term "Supplementary Comparison".

JCRB Chairman is to re-submit the revised Draft Terms of Reference for "Consultative Committee Working Groups on CMCs" [Document JCRB-10/6(3)_rev] to the CIPM with the JCRB's recommendations for approval.

JCRB Exec Secretary is to send the Committee the Annual JCRB Report.

Exec Secretary to provide more reminders regarding CMC review deadlines as appropriate.

JCRB members to provide views to Dr Hetherington on how information regarding NMIs' approaches to Clause 7.3 should be made available on the BIPM website.

RMO-JCRB Representatives to ensure that RMO TC/WG Chairs are informed about the TC/WG section of the JCRB website and to provide feedback on improvements to this and to the new features provided to facilitate the CMC review process.

SIM is to provide an updated RMO report to the Executive Secretary.

APMP is to provide an updated RMO report to the Executive Secretary.

The JCRB recommends the formation of separate Working Groups on CMCs within each CC2 with the main objective of facilitating the review of CMCs. All RMOs are to be represented within these Working Groups, even if they are not members of the CC - the Chairs of the relevant RMO Technical Committees/Working Groups are to have automatic membership on these Working Groups.

The JCRB recommends that RMO TC/WG Chairs meet regularly at least once per year, including scheduling a meeting in association with CC meetings.

Dr Semerjian is to re-submit SIM's CMCs to the relevant external RMO in the special case where only one external NMI from this RMO is in a position to review them. He is to inform the external RMO of the JCRB guidelines that, in this special case, only one review is undertaken of these CMCs.

The Director of BIPM is to re-consider the composition of the informal advisory group on uncertainty analysis with a view to formalising and broadening the membership.

A Joint BIPM-ILAC Working Group will be established to resolve the issues raised concerning coherence between the CIPM and ILAC MRAs. Prof Wallard is to to take the lead in this, and each RMO is requested to nominate one representative to provide the metrology representation. Prof Wallard is to determine a suitable venue for the initial meeting at which the issues will be identified. The outcomes are to be brought back to the next JCRB meeting.

JCRB-RMO Representatives to review the draft Terms of Reference of the JCDCMAS and provide comments to the JCRB Exec Secretary.

The Consultative Committees are to be asked to formally consider providing information about the coverage of key comparison results, e.g., in relation to which CMCs are supported by the results, etc.

RMO-JCRB Representatives are to request that RMO TC/WG Chairs contact the KCDB Coordinator when changes are necessary to service categories so that this can be done in a coordinated way across all RMOs.

The Document JCRB-9/10(1_rev) is to be taken back by the JCRB-RMO representatives for discussion within the RMOs. Comments are to be brought to the next JCRB meeting so that the document can be finalised as a JCRB document at that time.

The Joint BIPM/ILAC Working Group (see Action 22) is to address the issue of consistency between the CIPM and ILAC MRAs regarding the provision of details of NMI assessors.

RMO representatives to the JCRB are to encourage RMO TC/WG experts to refer to the existing guidelines on comparison procedures, etc.

The JCRB Exec Secretary is to create a new document which collates references to all other procedural documents regarding key, supplementary and bilateral comparisons and other relevant information to facilitate access to existing guidelines by RMO TC/WG experts.

RMO-JCRB Representatives are to refer RMO TC/WG experts to the discussion under Agenda Item 9.2 in the Report of the 9th JCRB Meeting regarding the responsibility for taking action when key comparisons results impact upon published CMC claims.

RMO-JCRB Representatives are to send the template for registration of CIPM and RMO key, supplementary and bilateral comparisons to their RMO TC/WG Chairs for information.

JCRB Committee members are to review the Draft Terms of Reference for the Working Groups on CMCs (Document JCRB-9/8[4-rev]) and provide final comments to the Exec Secretary by 25 November 2002.

The Chairman will write to IAEA encouraging it, once it has established its Quality System, to consider having it evaluated through one of the RMO QS processes. The letter will inform the Agency that EUROMET is willing for it to participate in its QS Forum process. In the meantime the JCRB approves the requested deadline by which the Agency will have established its Quality System.

RMOs must provide a one or two page summary of the intra-regional review report, providing an evaluation of how well the 9 criteria in Document JCRB-8/13(1b) have been addressed with each submission of CMCs for inter-regional review.

The JCRB strongly urges the EUROMET and APMP representatives to the JCRB to work together to resolve the issues relating to Thailand's E&M CMCs.

In order to ensure appropriate BIPM representation, RMO Representatives are to send a yearly calendar of RMO activities to the JCRB Exec Secretary, highlighting meetings at which attendance by senior BIPM staff is requested.

EUROMET to amend its' Status of CMCs document and re-send it to the Secretary.

Chairman to ask Executive Secretaries of CCs to invite RMO Representatives to the JCRB to nominate which CC member is authorised to represent the RMO at CC meetings.

COOMET to forward Appendix 3 of its' RMO report to the Secretary.

The Director of NMIJ to send a formal letter to the JCRB Chairman to inform him that HECTEF is nominated by Japan as a designated institute.

APMP to amend its' Status of CMCs document and re-send it to the JCRB Secretary.

Secretary to put up the following documents from the 8th JCRB Meeting on the open RMOwebsite:
8/4;
8/5(1)-(5) - APMP (Dr Seta), EUROMET (Dr Schwitz) and SIM (Dr Castelazo) to amend their reports then forward to Secretary to be posted on web.
8/7(3)
8/9 - Convenor of Working Group (Dr Schwitz) to combine this with JCRB-8/9(3) then forward to Secretary to be posted on web.
8/10
8/11 - Convenor of Working Group (Dr Hetherington) to amend then forward to Secretary to be posted on web.
8/11(2)

At the end of JCRB meetings, the Committee is to identify papers to be put onto the open RMO website.

Secretary to arrange for a new website to be established to be open to RMOs and their Committees. Secretary to forward password to JCRB Committee Members.

Chairman to discuss the joint meeting with UNIDO on 24 April 2002 at the April Directors Meeting.

Dr Castelazo to inquire about OAS participation (Dr Oscar Harasic) in the meeting with UNIDO on 24 April 2002 at the BIPM and Dr Seta to inquire about APMP DEC/APEC SCSC involvement. The responses are to be forwarded to the Chairman.

Chairman to ask Directors at the Directors meeting in April whether they are willing to put forward a list of assessors that can be provided to ILAC. The Chairman to also draft a short list of criteria to be met by assessors.

Secretary to send out MRA/KCDB posters to RMO Representatives and arrange for these to be available electronically.

Secretary to add SIM publication, INFOSIM, to list of publications.

Secretary to check on status of COOMET's AUV submission and to arrange for its inclusion on the database.

Secretary to regularly draft a one-page summary of activities and to distribute this to the JCRB as well as post it on the website to be used for publicity purposes by individual RMOs and NMIs.

Based on paragraph H of Document JCRB-8/13(1), the ad hoc Working Group on NMIs Quality Systems is to draw up criteria to be used in the monitoring of the operation of quality systems under Paragraph 7.3(b). The draft criteria are to be circulated to the JCRB by the ad hoc Working Group before the next JCRB meeting, i.e., before October 2002.

Chairman and Secretary to draft a document on the criteria that would lead to a review of CMCs already in Appendix C.

BIPM Director to formalise the role of CC WGs on KCs in reviewing relevant CMCs each time a new key comparison is completed.

Document JCRB-8/13(1) to be tabled by the JCRB Chairman for discussion at the April Directors Meeting.

BIPM Director to draft a position paper on guidelines regarding designated institutes that are commercial companies, to be raised with the CIPM. Drs Schwitz and Kaarls to assist.

BIPM Director to raise the issue of cases where designated institutes are commercial companies at the April Directors Meeting, with the suggestion that Directors try to ensure that activities identified in the MRA are separated from the institutes' commercial activities.

Secretary to request that the ad hoc Working Group on Inter-regional Harmonisation of Quality System Reviews considers the ILAC request for information on how NMIs have addressed Clause 7.3 to be made available on the MRA Website, and provides comments for discussion at the 9th JCRB Meeting.

Dr Sacconi to request that the INITIATION Project Leader provides a summary report (rather than a full report) to the JCRB.

Dr Hetherington to discuss Document JCRB-8/11 further with Dr Semerjian of NIST. Dr Hetherington to then revise the paper taking these comments into consideration as well as the discussions today and re-send the document to the Secretary.

Secretary to distribute the revised BIPM leaflet to all RMOs.

Secretary to post Document JCRB-8/10 on the website as a JCRB Document.

Chairman and Secretary to write a definitive document stating what a CMC is, based on Documents JCRB-8/9 and /9(3). This should have a footnote that care must be taken that the very best instruments are not the ones to which reference is being made (i.e, taking account of the concerns raised by SIM). This document will be circulated to the Committee for agreement. When agreed, the JCRB Chairman will send the document to the ILAC Chairman and it will then be posted on the website.

JCRB to note and accept rather than making a formal statement. NOTE: Mr Mike Peet, Chairman of ILAC, was invited to join the JCRB Meeting for discussions under Agenda Items 9,11, and 16.2.

Dr Kaarls to provide the JCRB with a report on the outcome of the discussions on uncertainty in chemistry CMCs.

The Executive Secretary to provide a Status of CMCs document a few weeks before each JCRB meeting.

The BIPM (Dr Allisy-Roberts) to coordinate the preparation of a report, in consultation with COOMET and NMIJ, on the Quality Systems status of IAEA to be provided to the JCRB Chairman to accompany the IAEA CMC submission. The final report will be circulated to the JCRB Committee.

Secretary to delete obsolete CMCs (e.g., EUROMET.AUV.part1) and discuss appropriate actions with RMOs when duplications occur.

RMO CMC submissions should include the report on the intra-regional review. Interregional review reports should then include a checklist indicating which of the items in the list of criteria provided in (what is now) Document JCRB-8/13(1b), Criteria for acceptance of data for Appendix C, have been addressed, with associated comments.

RMOs to inform the Executive Secretary of any additional information they require in the 3-monthly Status of CMCs summary.

It was agreed that:

1. If, for example, three RMOs agree to review a CMC and two do not then these two have abandoned their prerogative to review the CMC at any later stage.

2. RMOs are to provide the following:

• acknowledgement of the receipt of the CMC, plus
• the date by which they will review the CMC, plus
• the reviewer's name. This will, in most cases, be a TC Chairman. The name of the reviewer is to be provided so that reviews can be followed up.

3. An automated reminder will be sent to all RMOs if no acknowledgement of a CMC is received within 3 weeks.

4. The Secretary will send out a reminder after 3 weeks of the review deadline given by an RMO. This will be sent to both the individual responsible and the RMO contact.

5. A log book will be set up to sit behind each CMC to provide an "at a glance" synopsis of the status of the CMC. This will be accessible to RMO reviewers to allow them to provide information on the status of the review.

6. If an RMO review deadline has to change, it is the reviewer's responsibility to notify the JCRB Chairman.

7. Every 3 months, the Executive Secretary will send out a summary document of the status of all CMCs.

Chairman to send a copy of the Metrologia Editorial on the Technical Supplement to all Chairmen of CC Working Groups.

Dr Castelazo to report back to the JCRB Secretary within 2 weeks (i.e., by 22 March 2002) on whether SIM will review COOMET.T.

Secretary to note that SIM CMC communications are to be sent to Dr Castelazo and copied to Dr Semerjian and Ing Mussio.

Secretary to pursue the status of the SADCMET.RI.part1 CMCs in one month (i.e., by the first week of April 2002).

Chairman to post approval of SADCMET.RI.part2 on the website.

All RMOs, except SIM, to consider reviewing SADCMET.PR and to send their responses to the JCRB Secretary.

APMP to send SADCMET its intra-regional review report on SADCMET.L, which SADCMET is to then forward, with the CMC, to the JCRB Secretary to be sent on to EUROMET for review.

ALL RMOs to send updated Lists of Contacts to Secretary when changes have been made.

Dr Sacconi to write a discussion paper giving his preferred terminology in the MRA for "designated institutes" in cases where the nominating body is not the relevant government. This proposal is to be tabled at the Directors' Meeting in April.

Secretary to draw up a flowchart/document indicating the steps needed to register an RMO Key or Supplementary Comparison and to forward this to Committee Members.

Dr Schwitz to ensure that EUROMET Guidance Document No. 3 explicitly states that EUROMET-initiated comparisons are to be notified to the Executive Secretary of the relevant CC.

Secretary to forward the short and long English version and the long French version of the Calibration Certificate Statement referring to the MRA to the Committee to be used by NMIs as appropriate.

This certificate is consistent with the capabilities that are 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).

It was also decided that in relevant cases with respect to the uncertainty claims of CRMs the following note in Appendix C may be added: "For this CMC k is not explicitly k=2 but for some CRMs included in this CMC k may not equal 2, although all uncertainties have a 95% confidence interval".

An ad hoc Working Group is established to formulate the minimum requirements on what has to be reported about the review of the quality systems of the NMIs.
The members of this ad hoc WG are:
P. Hetherington (convenor, Note; P.Hetherington replaces M. Plantenga)
H. Semerjian
K. Seta
R. Kaarls

It is agreed that in principle the March meeting of the JCRB should take place in various regions around the world.

In principle, a non-connected NMI has to agree with one of the existing RMOs that that RMO will take care of the interests of the NMI concerned and in particular carry out the intra-regional review of its CMCs. The NMI has to join in activities and comparisons organised by that RMO. Once an RMO has been chosen, all of the CMCs of that NMI must pass through this RMO.

RMO supplementary comparisons have to follow the same rules as key comparisons for their results to be published in Appendix B after a review of the CC concerned. Bilateral comparisons can go in Appendix B as well. The BIPM will draft some guidance on this issue.

It was agreed that TJQ will set up on the BIPM website a confidential interactive box for indicating the status of and steps and dates in the review process of the CMCs. (See Doc. JCRB-6/04 and Doc. JCRB-6/07)

All formal JCRB documents will be numbered as : JCRB-x/y in which x is the nth meeting of the JCRB and y is a serial number.

It is recognised that in several countries a decentralised NMI exists. Traceability is therefore acceptable to laboratories officially designated by the NMI concerned or by the government of the country concerned and which form part of that distributed NMI

Traceability to an accredited laboratory in or outside one's own country is acceptable provided that this accredited laboratory is recognised under the ILAC-MLA. The traceability of the accredited laboratory has to be obtained from an NMI that is recognise

Traceability of an NMI's standards to those of an other country is acceptable, assuming that the CMCs of that other NMI are recognised under the CIPM MRA. This has to be verified during the review process.

It was decided that at a future meeting of the JCRB the RMOs will explain the procedures they apply for a continuous monitoring of the quality systems of their NMIs.

The format for chemistry CMCs has been agreed by the CCQM and subsequently by the JCRB.

In order to build up mutual confidence between the regions it is agreed that a representative of each region will be invited to attend the meeting of the General Assembly of the other RMOs or the other RMO Technical Committees dealing with the CIPM-MRA iss

CMCs should contain the capabilities of an NMI that are normally offered to their customers and which in general are published in the catalog of facilities of the NMI. So, one should not claim capabilities that may be offered under exceptional, time consum

Dr Kaarls will discuss the coordination of references to the CIPM-MRA in ILAC documents, particularly the ILAC-MLA, during the General Assembly meeting of ILAC to be held in the week of 30 October 2000 in Arlington, VA, USA.

All RMO documents related to review procedures should be publicly available so that the whole system is transparent and open. Each one should have a statement from the RMO saying that the document is complete and is compatible with other RMO documents. Whe

The JCRB also decides to create a separate document with clear deadlines related to the steps in the interregional review process.( document JCRB-5/3)

The JCRB decides to create a more detailed procedure, including all steps in the review process while making clear who is responsible for the different actions in the process. (document JCRB-5/1)

The JCRB will meet every six months for the foreseeable future.

The JCRB agreed that:
The JCRB agreed on the following time schedule, while setting priorities for those areas of measurements which are mostly developed now with respect to the review and analysis of CMC's:
- Deadline for submission of revised data

The JCRB agreed that:
- since only data declared fully reliable will be published in Appendix C, which is the database accessible by the outside world, there will be no "flags" or comments in the data in this database; in the draft data files reviewed b

The JCRB agreed on the following statement: The JCRB at its 4th meeting on 20 an 21 March 2000 is of the unanimous opinion that the declared objectives of the MRA require the CMC data entered in Appendix C be declared fully reliable by the RMO's. In conseq

The JCRB Rules of Procedure are approved.

Bob Watters and Claudine Thomas will complete several changes with respect to the input data files to be delivered by the RMO's and will distribute new instructions as soon as possible to the RMO's (Appendix 9).
- in Appendix C, an extra column will be

It was agreed that the database would be in the English language. The database would be maintained for the first years jointly by the NIST and the BIPM, after which it would be held and maintained on a permanent basis by the BIPM. The NMIs were free to pro

Key comparisons carried out by the BIPM would be re-numbered to avoid duplication with CC key comparisons;
- supplementary comparisons would not be coordinated by the BIPM;
- every region would register its own supplementary comparisons according

It was confirmed that the nomenclature used for the RMO key comparisons would follow the nomenclature as used by the CCs for the CIPM key comparisons, but that the RMOs would have their own system of consecutive numbering. Every comparison would have its o

The JCRB recommended that peers from other regions attend assessment review meetings of the RMOs.

The JCRB agreed that available provisional data should be sent by the RMOs to the BIPM before 31 December 1999. This should be done either in electronic form or in paper format . According to the rules of procedure of the JCRB the BIPM will send the gather

It was agreed that concerning approval by the local RMO of NMI's proposedcalibration measurement capabilities (cmcs) offered under MRA paragraph 7.3(b), there are three main criteria:
1. Results of participation in key and supplementary comparisons b

It was agreed that:
- RMOs should send to Executive Secretaries of the CCs their lists of provisional comparisons for Appendix B six weeks before the meetings of the CCs this year (see dates of CCs attached). A statement from RMO should be included con

A broad discussion took place on the way in which proposals for inclusion in Appendix C should be prepared. It was agreed that
(a) I. Castelazo would convene a working group made up of a member from each of the RMOs to draft a format for presenting inc