the proof is in the certificate of accreditation
You might be right, Randy, but where is the objective evidence?
My point is that Accreditation Bodies, such as RAB, RvA, UKAS, etc., might impose additional training/competence/controls before they accredit a certification Body to a new revision of a Standard, just like it happened when ISO 9001:2000 was released. Both certification bodies and auditors had to be “approved” for the new version of the Standard.
So, with ISO 13485:2003 being a stand-alone document, the AB’s might impose further training before certification bodies are “accredited” and authorized to issue certificates to the new version of the document.
When I look at the RAB website for registrars approved for that Standard (13485), nobody is listed as approved.
When I look at the UKAS website and open BSI’s scope of accreditation for QMS, it is dated August 8th, 2002. Prior to the release of ISO 13485:2003. The document also lists the following sector schemes BSI is approved for:
Sector Scheme Accreditation
Aerospace AS/EN 9100 IAQG Sector Scheme & TS157 Issue 4
Business Links
Land Mobile Radio
#Medical Devices (ISO13485 & ISO 13488)
NATO Codification
QS-9000
TickIT
But unfortunately this UKAS document does not specify the versions of the Standards registrars are accredited for.
Not trying to create controversy, but sometimes there is as disconnect between the Standard development bodies and the Accreditation Bodies.
So far, I have not seen any evidence that certification bodies have been formally accredited for ISO 13485:2003. I believe that the IAF must be evaluating this issue, right now.