Conformity Magazine - February 2009 - (Page 27)

or the organisational structure; or significant changes in the operations of the body. Each signatory to the Arrangement must also designate a liaison officer to provide a consistent channel of communication between the accreditation bodies. Re-evaluations take place at maximum intervals of four years. For some signatories, re-evaluations or follow-up evaluations can occur more frequently, depending upon actual performance and stability of the body. The Benefits Governments and industry are taking advantage of the ILAC Arrangement. Governments are using the Arrangement to further develop, enhance and underpin government–togovernment (mandatory sector) trade agreements. Another important step that is already underway involves government acceptance of the results from accredited laboratories. Regulatory agencies around the world, including those in the United States, are beginning to accept the results from testing and calibration laboratories that have been accredited by bodies that are signatories to the ILAC Arrangement, without direct government review, including results from laboratories in other countries. Many specifiers, like government agencies, have come to appreciate the importance of credible accreditation programs that are based on internationally recognised standards. With restricted budgets, many government agencies can no longer do it all themselves; increasingly, they must rely on third-party laboratories to support their regulatory efforts. When they do so, they need a fair and meaningful basis for identifying qualified providers. Accreditation provides such a basis, and the ILAC Arrangement provides a means for recognition of acceptable accreditation bodies and their laboratories test reports. Industry users of test and calibration data can similarly take advantage of the ILAC Arrangement. Industry users will have greater confidence in the accuracy of the test or calibration reports they are purchasing because they have been generated by a competent facility. Manufacturers also gain from accreditation. Instead of their own on-site assessments, they can defer to the assessments of competent accreditation authorities that are ILAC Arrangement signatories, thus saving resources and money. This activity is encouraged by the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement). WTO Members shall ensure, whenever possible, that results of test procedures from other Members are accepted, even when those procedures differ from their own, provided they are satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to their own procedures. The ILAC Arrangement is the best tool to provide the “verified compliance” demanded by the TBT Agreement. Examples of Successful Use of the Arrangement Some examples of success stories from the United States follow, which not only demonstrate that the ILAC Arrangement works to reduce redundant testing, but also that sharing resources among accreditation bodies can result in cost savings for accredited laboratories. Federal Highway Administration accepts accredited crash testing: The Federal Highway Administration has adopted a regulation accepting crash test data from any laboratory accredited by an accreditation body recognized under the ILAC Arrangement. United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) accepts ILAC-recognized calibration data: In support of its programs for calibration, the U.S. NRC now accepts the accreditation done by ILAC Arrangement signatories. United States-manufactured pipettes arrive in France: State-of-the-art pipettes made in the United States were tested by the manufacturer at its own A2LA-accredited laboratory. Upon arrival in France, the manufacturer was asked to have the pipettes retested. After discussions between all involved parties, the testing performed in the U.S. was accepted by French officials without the need for re-testing. february 2009 Conformity 27 http://www.kikusui.us http://www.kikusui.us

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Conformity Magazine - February 2009

Conformity Magazine - February 2009 Contents Editor's Note FCC Clarifies Closed Captioning Requirements for DTV Receivers Commission Cracks Down (For the Fifth Time!) On Junk Fax Marketer FDA Requests Comments on Global Harmonization Documents Australia Now Requires Solar Panel Testing and Certification EU Drafting New Directive on Toy Safety EU Commission Revises Standards List for EMC, R&TTE Directives Additional Standards Published For the EU's Medical Devices Directive EU Commission Publishes Additional Standards for Directives on Active Implantable, In Vitro Medical Devices EMC For the Functional Safety of Automobiles ESD Open Forum The ILAC Arrangement: Facilitating Trade Efficient Methodology for the EMI Analysis of Optical Transceivers Including PCBs and/or Flex Circuits The EuP Directive - Implementation, Design Requirements and Issues Chambers, Shielding, and Accessories Buyer's Guide CPSIA Lead Requirements Apply to Existing Inventory, Says CPSC CPSC Clarifies Certifcation Requirements Other CPSC Actions in the News IEC Standards Update Product Reviews UL standards Update Telcordia Standards Update From Our "You Can't Make This Stuff Up" Department Looking Back: Items from Past Issues of Conformity Advertisers

Conformity Magazine - February 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.