IEC25 - What is the interpretation on "equivalent" National Standards?

C

copelams

#1
What is the interpretation on "equivalent" National Standards? I belive that ISO10012, ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, or MIL-STD-45662A applies. I am aware that MIL-STD has been superceded, but it doesn't mean obsoleted does it?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
OK - now. By "equivalent" National Standards I assume you mean of calibration standards, correct?

If so, they are just asking that you present a reasoning for the standard you use. Obviously NIST has standards for just about everything. But theoretically if you came up with a measurement of a previously undefined 'aspect' or 'quality' YOU could define the standard. Units of length, light, mass, etc. are all pretty much taken, by the way...

You can use any standard you like - even a discontinued or obsoleted standard - as long as your system supports it (as long as it is documented) and 45662A is no exception.
 
C

copelams

#3
Thank you for the input. I would think that an obsolete standard would still apply. In fact, the "new" standards state that for comparison, review 45662A!

At any rate, the term "National equivalent" is a little ambiguous and the auditor we use wasn't too clear about whether 45662A was "OK". I wanted to pose a justification discussion, but I wanted some feedback from someone else before I firmly stood my ground. Thanks for the help!
 
D
#4
The ISO 10012 is not taking new posts so I will post this here. How do I put measurement uncertainty into a procedure? Just exactly what would be the definition and do I have to prove and document the uncertainty on every gage?
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#5
Dawn - I saw you posted your Q in the ISO10012 forum. Why do you say it (I assume you mean the forum) is not taking new posts? I just did a test post (which worked fine), and your message is there.
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#6
Back to the subject - OK - by standards you mean specification type stuff as opposed to measurement standards. I sorta touched on that in the last sentence of my response above but didn't fully understand the question...

You ask yourself the intent of what you're doing (eg. Calibration). The bottom line intent it to ensure your measurement system (QS9000 is now high on the MSA band wagon) is calibrated to a 'standard' so that we all measure the same inch. Method of measurement becomes more important with MSA (as an element - and there are many 'elements' of MSA).

You ask yourself the intent of what you're doing (eg. Calibration) and the intent is to have a defined system with certain characteristics of the system as 'required' and defined by a'spec' (if you will). In this case we have ISO10012, ANSI/NCSL Z540-1-1994, and MIL-STD-45662A. They each provide some guidelines and have similar, and in same cases the exact same, requirements. They each provide requirements which cause the system to meet the root intent.

I'm going to assume the auditor had simply never had MIL-STD-45662A in his past experience which explains why the auditor was 'fuzzy' about it. This is not unusual.

The last issue is the 'equivalent international standard' where the US has a calibration spec (the old MIL-STD-45662A for example) and say a Brazilian 'equivalent' (I have no idea what Brazil has). As long as they each meet the 'intent', you can use either - technically. Another example that may be closer to home is the ISO9001 standard where it is the same in all countries as far as text goes but is (typically) renamed or renumbered. If you look at ISO9001 in the US it is labeled ANSI/ISO/ASQC Q9001-1994. Canada names it something different. But - they are 'equivalent' standards. So you can use either one as they are, name asides, the same.

Do note that in the QS series, QS is a customer requirement and their MSA (used as an example herein) requirements are beyond 45662A requirements so there is not a match there.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 09-30-98).]
 
I

Iggy Gottesdiener

#7
Maybe a very small point, but MIL-STD-45662 was "canceled" in February 1995, and inactive for new design after December 1994. The two "national" equivalents for calibration systems are ISO 10012-1 and ANSI/NCSL Z540-1. Unless you are running a calibration service, I'd recommend staying away from that one. You could also consider the NVLAP from NIST, which is based on ISO Guide 25. Again, that's really meant for cal service companies. IMHO, base your cal syatem on the ISO 10012-1.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Interpretation of the MDR GSPR 23.4 (u) EU Medical Device Regulations 2
D IATF16949 - Interpretation of Customer Requirements clauses Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 2
A Interpretation of GMP Requirements for class 1 medical device manufacturer (device GMP exempt, only General controls applicable) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P MDR Rule 10 interpretation - Active Device EU Medical Device Regulations 3
Q % Study variation low, % tolerance high - GR&R Interpretation help Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 3
A Interpretation with regards to Ppk > Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 14
A OHSAS 18001 external auditor finding personal interpretation? Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 5
A OEM branding - My interpretation of the LVD Directive makes us a manufacturer CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
P Average Peel Strength - Interpretation of BS EN 868-5:2018 and ASTM F0088/F0088M Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
B ISO 50001 Interpretation of section 3.3.9 (Outsourcing) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
K Interpretation of significant change - material change Canada Medical Device Regulations 3
R MDR Software Rule 11 Formal Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 7
A IATF Sanctioned Interpretation No. 7 - Type and Extent of Control (supplemental) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
F Interpretation of MDR 2017/745 Article 23 - CE Mark Requirements EU Medical Device Regulations 8
U Hand-Held dosing device has no PATIENT - Interpretation of the PATIENT definition IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
G Medical Device "Immediate Container" Interpretation of Definition US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
A Interpretation of Article 16 (2b) - Packaging, samples and Certificate EU Medical Device Regulations 10
D EU MDR Corrigendum Interpretation EU Medical Device Regulations 3
M Informational MDCG 2019-3 Interpretation of Article 54(2)b – Pre- market clinical evaluation consultation procedure with the involvement of expert panels Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G EU MDR 2017/745 Rule 11 interpretation - Re-classification of a Software as Medical Device Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
JoshuaFroud Interpretation of Clause 5.5.2 in ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
qualprod P x I = Value interpretation for residual risk? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
T CSA Z299.3-85 Nuclear interpretation AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
D VDA Trigger Matrix in the VDA 6.2 Manual - Interpretation and Use VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 3
B Interpretation of Customer Specific Requirements of Continental - Records Retention Customer and Company Specific Requirements 6
S Interpretation or Definition of ‘Once Every 5 Days’ ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
N What is the interpretation I-MR-R chart in this question? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
E ME (Medical Equipment) Systems - IEC 60601-1 Clause 16.1 Interpretation IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 6
P IATF 16949 Cl. 7.1.5.2.1 "Calibration/Verification Records" Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
B Clarification on interpretation of some EN ISO 14971:2012 & IEC 62304:2006 req's ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 46
M IATF 16949 - 7.1.3.1 Plant, Facility, and Equipment Planning - Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
R Location Interpretation on Drawing - Hole to Hole? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
T TS 16949 Clause 7.4.1.2 and Sanctioned Interpretation IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
D Interpretation of new IAQG ruling - Audit duration for nonconformance verification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 7
K Interpretation of IEC 60601-1-2 Electromagnetic Compatibility – Requirements & tests IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
S Heat Treatment - Soaking time interpretation Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
D Interpretation of DOE interaction plot Using Minitab Software 8
A Training material for interpretation & understanding Part 11 requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
L Interpretation of "Any or All"'? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 10
G Interpretation of phrase - "Direct Authority" EASA and JAA Aviation Standards and Requirements 5
pittmatj Brazil: Interpretation of RDC 185 Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
D What is your understanding or interpretation of TS16949 7.4.1.2 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M Interpretation of Plus/Minus Draft - Injection Molded Parts Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
E FDA Significant Change Interpretation - Guidance Document EU Medical Device Regulations 2
0 ISO 9001:2008 interpretation not the same per country? (Netherlands and France) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
M Multiple Standard Interpretation Queries Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 4
A Need MSA %GRR Interpretation Advice Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
P EU Conflict Minerals Regulation Interpretation RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 3
S AS9102 Interpretation on Form 2 field 6 - Specification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
A Coke Reactivity Index (CRI) Testing Code Interpretation: ASTM D5341-99 (2004) Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom