IATF 16949 confusion

I found a confusing passage in the IATF 16949 standard as follows:

"7.1.5.3.2 External laboratory: ... the laboratory shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 or its national equivalent (e.g., CNASCL01 in China) by an accreditation body (Signatory) of the ILAC MRA (International Laboratory Accreditation Forum Mutual Recognition Arrangement – www.ilac.org) and include the relevant inspection, test, or calibration service in the scope of the accreditation (certificate); the certificate of calibration or test report shall include the mark of a national accreditation body; or..."

What is difference between an accreditation body of the ILAC MRA and a national accreditation body?

Why not "the mark of an accreditation body of the ILAC MRA" but "the mark of a national accreditation body"?

 

Thank you sir!
Your answer makes me think this:
- Need the mark of an accreditation body of the ILAC MRA for ISO/IEC 17025
- Need the mark of a national accreditation body for its national equivalent

 

I understand this. But I find it confusing because it is inconsistent. Above it says "be accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 ... by an accreditation body (Signatory) of the ILAC MRA", but below it says "the certificate of calibration or test report shall include the mark of a national accreditation body".
An "accreditation body (Signatory) of the ILAC MRA" is not necessarily a "national accreditation body".

 

All international standards are surely a challenge for the authors. I appreciate their efforts, appreciate the results (specifically 'ISO'), and empathize with their challenges. Having said that, I have found the IATF authors (influenced by and confused by the IATF OEM members and their own motives and narratives) to be confusing, contradictory, selfishly driven by making the IATF an OEM profit center and a conflict of interest. The sheer frequency and number of "SI' that the group issues are proof of what I claim.

i.e. your comment "confusing and inconsistent" are an accurate observation
(disclaimer: Much of my professional career and the way I make a living are directly related to the automotive industry. However, 30 years of experience give me the knowledge and right to criticize that very industry).

Be well.

 

Thank you so much. I've sent email to IATF, but have not received reply yet.

 

Thank you so much. I also agree with you, I find ISO 9001 standard very clear and easy to understand, while many other standards still have many confusing places, placing too much emphasis on rigid compliance.

 

Hi sir, I sent my question to IATF/IAOB and they've replied yet. "
Hello Vo Tien Manh, thank you for the question and Happy New Year. We are aware of this issue with the current wording in that clause of the IATF 16949 standard. We have received similar observations from others. These inputs are being used in the process of updating the standard to meet current requirements. We expect these updates to be part of the work to develop the 2nd Edition IATF 16949, which you might have seen announced on the IATF website https://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/." We will wait for the second edition of the IATF.

 

Well done @Vo Tien Manh