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 > > > >
