Mark, That is true, accreditation certainly has it's value.
But I have reason to suspect that the average retailer/distributor has little understanding of what NATA/NVLAP... accreditation is worth, or (in the case of Australia) really understands what the C-Tick itself is all about. Even though our sales offices only hire EEs, ours didn't have a clue about EMC testing. (How many EEs have any idea of the regulatory environment when they graduate, anyway?) Even though our Australia people talked to the SMA by phone/fax and obtained copies of the SMA rules for me, I still had to explain everything to them - in several emails. I have to believe this is more common than rare. After all, who wants to sign a legally binding document claiming compliance to something they don't even comprehend? Regards, Eric Lifsey National Instruments mbri...@elliottlabs.com on 09/25/97 02:21:35 PM To: Eric Lifsey/AUS/NIC, emc-p...@ieee.org, bnad...@matrox.com cc: Subject: Re: Australian EMC Good point Eric - but I would have thought that IF the manufacturer does not have an office in Australia and is relying upon the importer/distributor to apply the c-tick mark then it would be recommended that the manufacturer test at a NATA accredited lab (or at least an impartial test-house) so that the distributor/importer will have confidence in the results. Mark mbri...@elliottlabs.com > > >On the matter of: > >> (1) the laboratory used for the test must be accredited by their national >> laboratory assessor (NATA) or with some accredited body who have a Mutual >> Recognition Agreement with NATA (NIST/NVLAP or A2LA for USA, NAMAS for >> UK) > >In fact, a manufacturer *can* perform emission tests (as we do) without >NATA accreditation or an MRA. However, the (then) SMA strongly implied in >it's published literature that such testing may be subject to closer >scrutiny should an compliance issue arise, and that retesting could be >required in such cases. > >Last June the SMA conducted a random paperwork audit of our compliance >folders (much of which exists on a database except the DoCs are hardcopy) >at our Australia office. There was only a minor disagreement over whether >CISPR-11 Group 1 or CISPR-22 applied to some of our products. No other >issues were raised. > >Regards, >Eric Lifsey >National Instruments > > > >
