CIRCULAR 4 September 1995

1. Second Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum
   
   Arrangements for the second APLMF meeting in Beijing on 22 October are progressing well. The China State Bureau of Technical Supervision, which is coordinating the meeting has been liaising with the Secretariat to ensure the smooth functioning of the meeting.
   
   At the present moment, we have received positive response of attendance from the following economies, namely Australia, Canada, the host economy the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States of America.
   
   The China State Bureau of Technical Supervision has informed us that Dr. Gao Jie, an eminent metrologist and CIPM member, who is also the deputy director of China National Institute of Measurement and Testing, has agreed to chair the meeting.
   
   It would be appreciated if all members who have not indicated their attendance to inform the Secretariat as soon as possible.
   
2. Observers to the APLMF meeting
   
   As you would recall at the last Forum meeting, it was agreed that authorities from other economies on the Pacific rim could be invited to attend as observers. We believe that there will be interest in establishing other regional organisations and attendance of observers from other regions could assist this process. In consultation with the China State Bureau of Technical Supervision, we have agreed to allow the attendance of observers from other regions.
   
   Currently, we have agreed to requests from the Mongolian National Institute for Standardisation and Metrology who will be sending three observers led by the Deputy Director General, and the Cameroons who will be sending an observer as well.
   
   The regional body, Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC) will also be represented.
   
3. Response to surveys on Legislative Harmonisation, Harmonisation of Trade Measurement : Prepacked Goods Requirements and Training
   
   We have received response from several economies on the above questionnaires, and reports of the findings will be presented at the Beijing meeting.
   
   However, we would appreciate if those members who have not returned their questionnaires to do so in order that a more complete report could be available at the meeting.
   
4. Weights and Measures Legislation
   
   The Secretariat has received copies of the legislation of the following economies in response to the earlier circular, namely, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea and the United States of America.
   
   We would appreciate if those economies which have not sent in their legislation to do so.
   
   There has been some consideration by the Secretariat on the value of having all the legislation in the region translated into English. We would be interested in receiving members views on this issue. We believe funding could be available for such a project.
   
5. Technical Infrastructure Development
   
   In Circular No. 2 June 1995, we included a copy of the APEC draft survey document on technical infrastructure development and requested Forum members to provide input on legal metrology to their national response.
   
   Recently the Secretariat has received requests from the APEC Standards and Conformance Sub-Committee (SCSC) for information on needsfor technical infrastructure development in legal metrology in the region. It would be useful if we could provide a general overview response to these questions.
   
   I would greatly appreciate it if Forum members could provide information on their technical infrastructure needs in legal metrology. This could include:
   
   • legislative development;
   • testing facilities; and
   • training.
   
   
6. Specialist Regional Testing Facilities
   
   The APEC Standards and Conformance Sub-Committee has prepared a draft program on medium/long term action on standards and conformance to be discussed at an SCSC meeting in Hong Kong on 10 September. Two issues that have arisen during discussion on this program have been:
   
   • Specialist regional testing facilities
   • Establishment of a Pan-APEC Conformity Assessment Centre.
   
   The Convenor's views on these issues are that if we are to establish a system of regional/international acceptance of test results and certificates, there will need to be mutual confidence in the capabilities of the individual national systems. This will require a degree of capacity building in a number of APEC economies to ensure they have the minimum capability necessary to ensure continuing conformity of imported goods and services.
   
   There is a strong case for specialised testing facilities being established in only a limited number of economies, but I would have extreme reservations if the facilities were only available in one economy; mainly because many of these facilities eg. electromagnetic immunity and emission testing are still not an established science and there is still wide variations between individual test laboratories.
   
   A prerequisite for any discussion on provision of test facilities in the region is to survey the existing facilities and the extent to which access to these facilities is available to other economies. Some of this information is available in the Directory of Legal Metrology in the Asia-Pacific.
   
   I would have major reservations about the proposal for a Pan-APEC Conformity Assessment Centre if this was to be located in a single location. Such a Centre would be relevant to the above comments on specialised test facilities if it was distributed across centres of excellence in a number of economies with appropriate duplication/multiplication to provide intercomparisons of testing.
   
   Any discussion of conformity assessment and test facilities needs to recognise the importance of statistical auditing of output to ensure continuing conformity, particularly in those areas where there is a commercial advantage in not achieving conformity. Whilst intercomparison/proficiency testing can establish the level of best capability of a testing laboratory, it does not establish the day-to-day level of production testing.
   
   In summary, I believe the first step should be to establish a Directory of test facilities in the region and the extent of practical accessibility to these facilities.
   
   I would appreciate your comments on these issues which will be further discussed at the Beijing Forum meeting.