Conformity Magazine - October 2008 - (Page 37)

Determining the competence of accreditation bodies is established by multilateral mutual recognition arrangements (MRAs) among accreditation bodies. On the global level, the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) and the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) have MRAs covering testing and certification, with inspection soon to follow. These arrangements are being established to reduce cross-border barriers to the acceptance of conformity assessment results, and to eliminate redundant conformity assessments and accreditations that may now be required. It is widely agreed among those in the accreditation world and many international trade officials that further layers or levels of approval on top of this hierarchy are not necessary and would just add costs without any real benefit. The current effort by the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) has, in our opinion, strayed from this framework by the elimination of the mutual recognition requirement and the adoption of a‘vertical’ recognition scheme. Peer evaluation has been abandoned, making mutual recognition and acceptance impossible. ISO/IEC 17040:2005, Conformity Assessment - General requirements for peer evaluation of conformity assessment bodies and accreditation bodies, provides criteria for peer evaluation policies, practices and procedures. Figure 2 illustrates a hierarchy of three levels: the conformity assessment level, the accreditation level, and the recognition level. The conformity assessment level is directly connected to the customer-supplier transaction. The accreditation level is the level providing assurance of competence at the conformity assessment level. The recognition level consists of a series of multilateral mutual recognition arrangements among accreditation bodies overseeing the accreditation level. Technical Barriers to Trade The Word Trade Organization (WTO) developed the technical barriers to trade agreement (TBT agreement), which are also referred to as non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Clearly, if acceptance of conformity assessment reports is a requirement for trade, then the non-acceptance of such a report is a non-tariff barrier. In many economies, regulators now recognize the benefit of the enormous cost savings to taxpayers, and the reduction in compliance costs, by several regulators all accepting conformity assessment reports from accredited organizations, rather than undertaking their own duplicate audits, test or inspections. In general, regulators have recognized that the assessment undertaken by MRA signatories are both more rigorous, and more comprehensive, than the audit generally undertaken by a regulator. The involvement of a technical expert as a peer-assessor gives added credibility to the accreditation assessment. In many jurisdictions, the regulators who recognize the value of accreditation also recognize and use the benefits from the MRA process. For example, several countries’ radio frequency spectrum regulators now recognize all EMC test reports from any country, provided they are from a laboratory that is accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory. The Role of the Regulator Clearly, the primary role of any regulator is to protect the health and safety, or the environment, for its own citizenry. However, many regulators have recognized that they can achieve their primary aim, and still not hinder trade, by utilizing some basic common elements. In areas where many regulators use the same common standards (as in the case for EMC), then a common process for recognizing competent laboratories to test against these common standards should be welcomed. The ILAC MRA provides just such a process, in a cost-effective, transparent manner. In areas where different technical standards are used (frequently an issue between the United States and Europe), the recognition of competent laboratories provides an ever more valuable tool, as an accredited laboratory in “country A” can be recognized as competent to assess compliance with the testing standard mandated by the regulator in “country B”. Even though the regulatory requirement differs in the two economies, the ability to recognize the same conformity assessment process actually facilitates trade, and removes the need for further intervention (and increased cost) at the regulatory level. Conclusion Government and industry are urged to find ways to use these multilateral MRAs, and to avoid creation of duplicative conformity assessment, accreditation and recognition activities. Relying on the results of conformity assessment bodies accredited by globally recognized accreditation bodies rather than carrying out their own separate activities helps to minimize the costs on customers who ultimately pay for the costs of all conformity assessment, accreditation and recognition activities. Ideally, all elements of the global market will be served. Suppliers will get one test, inspection or certification accepted everywhere. Conformity assessment bodies will get one accreditation accepted everywhere. Accreditation bodies will get one recognition accepted everywhere. And finally, but most importantly, customers will get the needed assurance in the quality and safety of products they buy at a fair price. Peter Unger is president of the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), and can be reached at punger@a2la.org. FAST Link www.conformity.com/2250 oCtober 2008 Conformity 37 http://www.conformity.com/2250

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Conformity Magazine - October 2008

Conformity Magazine - October 2008 Contents Editor's Note FCC Releases Annual Report on National Do-Not-Call Registry Commission Cracks Down (for the Fourth Time!) On Junk Fax Marketer FCC Releases Quarterly Reports on Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Greenpeace Ranks Electronics Manufacturers Standards List For The EU’s Energy Consumption Directive Published EU Commission Publishes Standards List for Directives on Pressure Equipment, Pressure Vessels Standards List for the EU’s Medical Devices Directive Available The IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society: The First Five Years ESD Open Forum Improving Election Security and Accuracy: The Future of Voting System Certification Conformity Assessment and Accreditation: Their Role in the Global Market Design Issues in Extreme EMC Environment Focus On... Test Equipment Buyers Guide Product News Updated Standards List for EU Directive on Active Implantable Medical Devices FDA Warns of Effects from CT Scans on Electronic Medical Devices FDA Provides Report Card on Its PMA Review Process CPSC Releases Import Safety Strategy 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 - October 2008

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.