Here is my simple understanding of a complex situation
:
- The EU wants one AB per member state
- Each member state has legislation in place to this effect
- Those CBs who recognise accreditation from their recognised AB as a means Of demonstrating capability still do!
- Unaccredited CBs who don't want to go for formal accreditation by a recognised AB are considering options including the following:
- Continue operating as an unaccredited CB without using an unaccredited AB
- Become accredited through their recognised AB
- Use an unaccredited AB from outside the EU
- Continue with an unrecognised AB from within the EU and wait for legal action (if it ever comes)
- Until the situation becomes clearer no legal action will take place
Paul,
May I respectfully offer some difference in terminology, based on part of your response.
The option many labs also pursue is to use an ILAC Signatory (not as sure about IAF) that is outside EU. If I understand your use of recognized, then those ABs are in fact recognized.
EA, the Regional Cooperation - like it or not - is obligated to accept the accreditation and go to bat with regulators over it, or risk complaint leading to investigation and even re-evaluation by ILAC. Generally, those labs also use the National body for commerce within their country.
I do not disagree, just trying to clarify.
With respect to efforts that can be drawn by Signatory ABs compared to non-Signatory, I understand and generally agree. However, the ones that are trying to do it right and just not yet able to become Signatory should not be discriminated against, in terms of having the chance to become Signatory. That means they need a few accreditations, generally in areas where accreditation is not a requirement, in order to have the track record necessary to apply to ILAC or a Region.
Just my thoughts.