25th CIML Meeting — Minutes (EN, Bulletin)

The COMMITTEE raised no objection to those conclusions and, by a vote of which the result is given in Annex 1, approved the document "OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments".

The BUREAU mentioned the technical seminars organized to date and gave some details of the latest, "Weighing in Braunschweig", organized in May 1990 with the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany. It proposed that a new seminar be organized in 1992 on a subject to be decided, and asked Committee Members concerned to make their proposals (subject and venue) known.

The recent accession of Saudi Arabia having already been mentioned, the Bureau had nothing to add on the subject, other than that a number of countries, such as Mexico, had made it known that they were considering the possibility of joining OIML, though no more details were then available.

Mr KOCHSIEK informed the Committee that on that very day, the 3rd October 1990, Germany was being reunified. Every branch of the law, including that of metrology, of the Federal Republic of Germany would therefore apply thenceforth in the former German Democratic Republic. The PTB was responsible for the scientific aspects of metrology and, as concerned legal metrology, for pattern approvals, whereas the authorities of the eleven Lander that had hitherto constituted the FRG were responsible for verifications. The scientific activities of the former ASMW would be taken over by the PTB, while the ASMW's former responsibility for verification would be assumed by the institutions of the five new Lander that would be constituted in the territory of the former GDR. From that day forward the regulations of the FRG were applicable in the former GDR. The PTB would continue to be sited at Brunswick and Berlin; however, the ASMW's centre in Berlin would become PTB's third site. The consequences for OIML would be the following:

The auditor's report for 1989 was approved without comment.

Mr ATHANE said that the financial estimates sent out at the end of 1989 remained current, with the following modifications:

Mr BIRKELAND reminded the Committee that Mr Petik would retire from the Bureau on 31st May 1991 and that ten candidates (*) for the post that he would vacate had been nominated by, between them, seven Member States; those candidacies had been studied by an ad hoc group formed by the Committee, which had met on Wednesday 3rd October after the plenary session; the group had accepted the criteria specified by the Bureau in its enquiry: a thorough prior knowledge of OIML's activities and a perfect mastery of the Russian language. While recognising the merits of all the candidates, the ad hoc group had decided to draw up a short list of three names: Mr Szilvassy, Mr Synac and Mr Vishenkov (in alphabetical order of the French names of their countries of origin). By means of a secret ballot in which 37 Members of the Committee or their representatives took part the Committee elected Mr VISHENKOV as the new Director's Assistant, by 26 votes in the first round. The formal date for the Director's new assistant to take up his post was 1st June 1991, but it could be advanced or delayed by agreement between the person concerned and the Director of the Bureau, to suit the convenience of either party.

Mr ATHANE said that Mr Thulin, Assistant Director, would retire during 1992, and that the Committee would have to elect his successor at its meeting in 1991; the Bureau would shortly be seeking candidacies with that end in view.

There was no other business concerning the staff of the Bureau.

The COMMITTEE raised no objection to those conclusions and, by a vote of which the result is given in Annex 1, approved the document "OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments".

Mr ATHANE reminded the Committee that it had requested the Bureau to study this matter. A preliminary analysis had been submitted to the Presidential Council and to the Pilot Secretariats concerned at the beginning of 1990. That analysis, corrected and enlarged, was now before the Committee. Each Recommendation (or group of related Recommendations) had been studied with reference to the criteria set out below:

Mr BIRKELAND mentioned all the parties, apart from the OIML Secretariats, who would have to be informed in a particular country about the operation and the development of the System. Some countries had already distributed information about it; such information could be sent to the Bureau and transmitted to all the Member States with encouragement to act in like manner.

Mr BIRKELAND reminded the Committee of the importance of this subject in the framework of the OIML Certificate System. However, a revision of the working method was necessary in itself, to improve the efficiency of OIML, not only for its own benefit but also for that of the numerous international and regional organizations that used its work. On the basis of earlier decisions of the Conference and of the Committee the Bureau had studied the situation in detail, had reported on it to the Presidential Council, had made an analysis of the differences that appeared to exist between the new directives for the work of ISO and IEC and the existing working method of OIML, and had made proposals for new working methods for OIML, including two draft resolutions (see Annex 2) for the consideration of the Committee.

Mr BIRKELAND reminded the Committee that the Bureau had distributed a draft on this subject to all Members in August 1990 with a request that comments be sent to the Bureau before 1990.12.31. He did not propose therefore that the draft be discussed at the meeting. The comments would be compiled by the Bureau and submitted to the Presidential Council at its next meeting. A final draft could then be sent to all the Members of the Committee for approval by correspondence or at the next meeting.

The paper entitled "State of progress of the work of OIML Secretariats", brought up to date on 1990.9.30, had been sent by post to all Members of the Committee, and spare copies were available to anyone attending the meeting.

The BUREAU announced the following:

By a vote of which the results are given in Annex 1, the Committee approved the following International Recommendations for immediate publication and formal submission to the Ninth Conference:

Mr BIRKELAND remarked that there was no paper for that item of the agenda, and that the Committee was invited to discuss it orally. Obviously the two subjects, certification and the revision of the working method, were part of the Organization's longterm policy and were even its main elements. However, there were other aspects of long-term policy that the Committee could discuss, and all present were invited to make known their thoughts on the subject.

The BUREAU read a report on the organization of training courses for developing countries. That action had arisen from a proposal from the OIML Development Council in 1989 that had been accepted by the Committee and according to which the OIML budgetary item for the Development Council in 1990 and 1991 could be used to contribute to the expenses of some (probably four or five) trainees attending courses to be organized by countries volunteering to do so.

The BUREAU mentioned the technical seminars organized to date and gave some details of the latest, "Weighing in Braunschweig", organized in May 1990 with the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany. It proposed that a new seminar be organized in 1992 on a subject to be decided, and asked Committee Members concerned to make their proposals (subject and venue) known.

The report was distributed to all present.

There was no other business.

The Committee approved the minutes of the Twenty-fourth CIML meeting without modification.