| |||||||||||||||
|
|
CHOOSING
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
NATA ACCREDITATIONS - AUSTRALIAN EMC REQUIREMENTS
|
|||
| Industrial,
Scientific, Medical |
CISPR11 |
AS/NZS2064 |
|
| Spark
Ignition Engines |
CISPR12 |
AS/NZS2557 |
pending |
TV/Radio/Audio |
CISPR 13 |
AS/NZS1053 |
|
| Appliances,
Motors, Tools, similar |
CISPR14 |
AS/NZS1044 |
|
| Luminaires, Lighting |
CISPR15 |
AS/NZS4051 |
|
| Microwave
Ovens |
CISPR19 (& CISPR 11) |
AS/NZS4052 (& AS/NZS 2064) |
N/A |
| ITE |
CISPR22 |
AS/NZS3548 |
|
| Generic
Emissions |
EN50081-1 |
AS/NZS4251.1 |
|
| Generic
Immunity |
EN50082-1 |
AS/NZS4252.1 |
|
| TV/Radio
Immunity |
CISPR20 |
AS/NZS4053 |
pending |
| Immunity
to Electrostatic Discharge |
IEC1000-4-2/EN61000-4-2 (IEC 801-2) |
no Australian equivalent |
|
| Immunity to Radiated Immunity |
IEC1000-4-3/EN61000-4-3 (IEC 801-3) |
no Australian equivalent |
|
| Immunity to Electrical Fast Transients |
IEC1000-4-4/EN61000-4-4 (IEC 801-4) |
no Australian Equivalent |
|
| COMPETENT BODY | IEC/ISOGuide 39 | NATA Rules for Inspection Bodies |
|
OTHER EMC REGIMES
|
||
| Military |
MIL-STD-285 |
|
| USA |
FCC Part 15 |
Registered |
| New Zealand |
MOC |
Registered |
| CE Marking - Europe |
TCF / Competent Body |
no MRA for CBs in place |
| Japan |
VCCI |
Registered |
Testing by an accredited NATA or MRA partner laboratory is the safest way of proving compliance. A NATA endorsed report is acceptable by the ACA and most of Australia's trading partners including the EU countries. A NATA report can only be issued by a laboratory performing the test, if that laboratory is NATA registered for the specific standard applicable to the device. Accredited testing will minimise the risks should a dispute arise with the regulatory agencies. Non-accredited testing should be avoided as there is no guarantee of the reliability or the accuracy of the results. The use of non accredited testing is cheaper, but in practice it is rejected by regulators.
NATA accredited facilities meet the requirements of ISO/Guide 25, demanding full calibration traceability of measurement equipment to the national standards at the National Measurement Laboratories (NML) of the CSIRO, and thereby to international standards. Calibration traceability is essential for the acceptance and recognition of test reports. NATA accredited test houses have been thoroughly evaluated by NATA and accredited as meeting internationally recognised standards for good laboratory practice, the availability of the necessary test facilities, an adequate level of technical competence and the appropriate quality management systems. A NATA endorsed report gives the highest confidence in technical competency and in the reliability of the test results.
NATA has a mutual recognition agreement with the Testing Multilateral Agreement Group of the European Co-operation for Accreditation of Laboratories (EAL). NATA endorsed reports are acceptable as technical grounds for making a Declaration of Conformity by the following international bodies:
* EUROPE NAMES, STALAG, DANK, SWEDE, SIGNAL COFRAC, RELE, ICLAB, FINAS, NA, SAS
* AUSTRALIA NATA, AUSTEL
* USA NVLAP, A2LA. FCC Listed for Parts 15 and 18
* HONG KONG HOKLAS
* NEW ZEALAND TELARC Also listed with Ministry of Commerce
Similarly, reports which carry the endorsement of one of those international bodies are recognised as having equal status with NATA reports.
If non-NATA testing is used, there is often an unacceptable risk of non-compliance and the possibility of interference occurring. The supplier is accepting total responsibility for EMC compliance by not using NATA accredited testing. If, for any reason, a product is found to be non-compliant, the supplier and the individual making the declaration, may be exposed to criminal sanctions or civil and legal liability. The use of NATA testing provides the best possible protection to the person signing the declaration of conformity since it means that the supplier has exercised due diligence and this may be used as a defence in any legal dispute.
The most common means of Compliance with the EMC framework is by testing against the CISPR/SMA standards. In a some cases, a Technical Construction File (TCF) can be prepared and submitted to an SMA recognised Competent Body for assessment. The TCF route is intended to be used when the product is too large or impossible to test, or when there are a large number of variants of a basic model. Some other cases represent a very small number of products and will not concern most suppliers under the current scope of the Australian EMC Framework.
|
www.emctech.com.au |