A SCREENING PROJECT ON NON AUTOMATIC WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS (NAWI) WITH POINT OF SALE (POS) DEVICES

Transcription

1 A SCREENING PROJECT ON NON AUTOMATIC WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS (NAWI) WITH POINT OF SALE (POS) DEVICES DUŠANKA ŠKRBIĆ WELMEC, WG 5/ADCO MI meeting, 21-23, March, Paris

2 Content: Background Definition of the project tasks The results of the surveillance/supervision Results of the metrological tests Results of the formal examination Where we discover the biggest non conformities Follow actions Summary

3 Background and rationale for the study NAWI + POS devices are part of the daily life of millions of Europeans Devices need to fulfil the requirements described in the Directive 214/31/EU Lack of knowledge and experience by market surveillance authorities Surveillance of these devices in France 213

4 Definition of the project tasks Formal test Device identification (manufacturer, type designation, serial number, year of CE marking, TC number for POS system) Documents declaration of conformity and by whom it was issued Visual inspection/ conformity marking Software version (NAWI/POS) Visibility to both vendor and customer: weight/unit/price to pay

5 Metrological examination Definition of the project tasks Test of stability of equilibrium - possible differences between digital indication and print-out Accuracy test at 1 g and 1 kg Test of price calculation- possible differences between digital indication and print-out Multiple print out possibility Other remarks

6 Participating countries: 1. France 2. Ireland 3. Netherland 4. Slovenia 5. Spain 6. Switzerland

7 Tested: 449 NAWI + POS Number of the tested measuring instruments FRANCE IRELAND NETHERLANDS SLOVENIA SPAIN SWITZERLAND

8 Tested NAWI by manufacturers Digi 2% Herbert 2% Data Logic 3% Others 17% Avery Berkel 19% Metler Toledo 29% Bizerba 28%

9 Tested POS by manufacturers Others 36% IBM 2% Fujitsu 2% Empty 3% Centric retail 3% TC pos 5% Wincor Nixdor 16% NCR 9% Toshiba 6%

10 Metrological tests Test of stability equilibrium Not passed 3% Passed 97% Test of stability equilibrium any differences (between digital indication and print-outs) Not passed 3% Empty 1% Passed 96%

11 Metrological tests Test of price calculation 1 (one load and three different price) Not passed 1% Passed 96% Empty 3% Test of price calculation 2 (one fixed unit price and three different loads) Not passed 3% Passed 97%

12 Metrological tests Accuracy test 1 g Not passed 1% Passed 97% Empty 2% Accuracy test 1kg Not passed 5% Passed 95%

13 Metrological tests Multiple print out possible, without unloaded balance Not passed 1% Empty 1% Passed 89%

14 Metrological tests Metrological examination passed Not passed 12% Empty 1% Passed 87%

15 Formal Checks POS / NAWI Labels/ conformity marking Labels POS Labels NAWI Incompl ete 3% Empty 3% Comple te 67% Incimpl ete 2% Comple te 98% Conformity marking/sealing point Incomplet e 4% Complete 96%

16 Formal Checks Visibility Visible currency to user and No 9% customer Empty 1% Yes 9% Visible price to user and customer No 3% Yes 96% Empty 1% Visible weight to uuser and customer No 3% Empty 5% Yes 92%

17 Formal Checks Software in POS/ NAWI Software POS No 17% Empty 23% Yes 6% Empty 24% Software NAWI Yes 44% No 32%

18 Formal Checks Declaration of conformities POS + NAWI Declaration of conformity POS + NAWI No 48% Yes 52%

19 No. of tested instruments Yes [%] Formal Checks by countries - Visual inspection % 1% 98% 98% 3 92% 85% France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland 1% 95% 9% 85% 8% 75% 7% 65% 6% 55% 5% YES NO YES [%]

20 No. of tested instruments Formal Checks by countries Labels NAWI Complete [%] % 1 1% 1% 98% 99% 1% 14 95% % % 85% France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland 8% Complete Incomplete Complete [%]

21 No. of tested instruments Complete [%] Formal Checks by countries POS Labels % 1% 1% % 25% % France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland * Switz.: empty 12 Complete Incomplete Complete [%] 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% %

22 No. of tested instruments Formal Checks by countries Visible weight to user and customer % 1% 98% 96% 9% 92% France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland Yes [%] 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Yes No Yes [%]

23 No. of tested instruments Formal Checks by countries Visible price to user and customer % 1% 98% 92% 92% 92% France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland Yes No Yes [%] Yes [%] 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% %

24 No. of tested instruments Yes [%] Formal Checks by countries Visible currency to user and customer % 1% 98% % % % 4 66 France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Spain Switzerland 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Yes No Yes [%]

25 No. of tested instruments Formal Checks by countries - Software in NAWI (TAC) % 1% 9% 83% 8% 8 7% 6% 47% 5% 72 4% 29% 9 32% 3% % % 15 8 % % France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Switzerland Spain Yes No Yes [%] Yes [%] Number of Country tested Passed Not passed Empty Passed [%] France % Ireland % Netherlands % Slovenia % Switzerland % Spain Date: %

26 No. of tested instruments Formal Checks by countries Software in (TC) POS % 9% 6 67% 46% % % France Ireland Netherlands Slovenia Switzerland Spain Yes [%] 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Yes No Yes [%] Number of Country tested Yes No Empty Yes [%] France % Ireland % Netherlands % Slovenia % Switzerland % Spain %

27 Where we discover the biggest non conformities? Formal checks: 48 % of measuring instruments were without (accessible) declaration of conformity for all system In 4 % it was not possible to check the software in the (TC or PC) POS device In 5 % it was not possible to check the software in the (TAC) NAWI Metrological test: 12 % of measuring instruments did not pass metrological test

28 Following actions Following action will depend on national regulation and discovered non conformities...?

29 Summary What were our goals? 1. Get information if the NAWI + POS device are in accordance with the regulations 2. To take all possible measures to eliminate non-compliance devices 3. To obtain more knowledge and experience in the field 4. To encourage other Member States to join the project or independently verify the conformity of these devices What we achieved? 1. Obtained information (findings) are not encouraging 2. Measures will follow 3. Through surveillance/inspection we have got a knowledge and experiences 4. Based on the findings, it is expected that such supervision will follow in other member countries as well