I can confirm the following facts and real good rumors:
The applicant for a Supplier Code Number, and the signatory for a Declaration
of Conformity, must be either an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia.
In our case, we had our Australia office to apply for the code number. (I
tried
to stretch their definition - but the SMA wouldn't budge - so don't waste your
time trying.)
The C-Tick Mark can be affixed at the point of manufacture, even if it is
outside of Australia. But once again, the applicant and DoC signatory must be
an Australian citizen or resident of Australia.
The C-Tick Mark must be 3.0 mm in diameter, and text alongside the mark must
be at least 3.0 mm high; with "distinct spacing no greater than a single
character width in the same font".
You have three choices for marking your product, the choices appear on the
application form, and you must chose one (only). The simplest scheme is to
apply the C-Tick with a Supplier Code number, in our case it is only 4 digits
long. Or, you can chose a scheme that calls for your entire address to appear
with the C-Tick Mark.
The SMA responds very quickly to fax inquiries (never tried voice):
Fax [61] (6) 253 2424
Voice [61] (6) 256 5555
(The official number is (06) 256 5555, but non-Australia callers must
drop the zero for the call to go through. [61] is the country code.)
USA/UK folks will love this: The SMA literature is well planned and, of
course, was originally written in English! There are two key publications, the
2nd one has greater detail:
"emc FRAMEWORK Information for Retailers"
(booklet form, 24 pages)
"Electromagnetic COMPATIBILITY FRAMEWORK Information for Suppliers"
Looseleaf fashion in a vinyl notebook, nonstandard holes, 58 pages.
CE Mark DoCs are not useful because an Australian signatory is required plus
the SMA uses their own nomenclature for the various EMC standards.
Australian registration is not required, but highly desirable (see levels of
compliance below).
Three levels of compliance exist:
Level 1
Make a Declaration of Conformity claiming compliance
(Presumably you'd back this up with something, like your own data.)
Level 2
This is Level 1 plus:
Technical Test Report from SMA recognized lab, or SMA/MRA/NATA Lab
Hold a Laboratory Compliance Certificate from such Lab
Make a signed/formal Declaration of Conformity
Level 3
This is Level 2 plus:
Have a Quality Management System (QMS) Certificate to ISO 9003
Must be certified by JAS-ANZ or listed in the ISO Directory
SMA Web site: http://public.sma.gov.au/
You may have to provide SMA with example artwork of your C-Tick & code, just
to show you know what you're doing.
In contrast to the CE Mark, the C-Tick Mark is a registered certification
trade mark (like UL, TUV...), which means you cannot use it without being
properly authorized/authorised in writing by the SMA.
The SMA responds to an application (when properly done) with a four page
letter which reiterates the proper use of the C-Tick label and says where you
can get "bromides" or electronic copies of the C-Tick Mark. (It's on their web
site anyway.) This letter is your official permission to use the mark, keep it
safe but easy to find.
If your application is in error, the SMA responds very quickly - trust me.
I'll skip the technical stuff, it is clearly listed in their literature.
Unlike the CE Mark, this is strictly (so far) an EMC mark, product safety is
not currently represented by this mark.
Note - this research was done circa September 1996.
Good Luck,
Eric Lifsey
National Instruments, USA
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FW- Australia EMC test
From: "Steve Chin" <[email protected]> at Internet
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 1/31/97 9:30 AM
My company's undergoing an investigation on obtaining the C-Tick mark too.
Something else I found out about the Declaration of Conformity is that the
original must remain at an Australian address, preferably the address of the
person signing the DoC.
--------------------------------------
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 1/31/97 6:39 AM
To: Steve Chin
From: Mark Briggs
Randall,
I was under the impression that the statement of compliance/Declaration Of
Conformity for Australia had to be held and signed by a Registered
Australian Company. This would mean that if you were not registered as an
Australian company your importer would do this for you. They would be more
likely to sign the declaration if your test results were from an Accredited
body. From what I have read there is no compulsory requirement for EMC
testing to be performed accredited test lab for non-telecommunications
equipment, but a product's compliance is less likely to be questioned if its
test results come from a NATA-recognised lab.
Mark
At 02:57 PM 1/30/97 PST, you wrote:
>
>
> ----------
>From: Flinders, Randall
>To: EMFLDS-L Mailing List
>Subject: Australia EMC test requirements
>Date: Tuesday, January 28, 1997 3:11PM
>
>Hello group,
>
>I am hoping someone may have some information for me on this issue. After
>reviewing the Australia EMC requirements, I have to say that I could not
>locate anything that said that testing MUST be performed by a NATA
>accredited test facility. The most I could come up with was that Austel
>states that ideally the data should be from an accredited facility. Is it
>required that I take my testing to an accredited lab, or can I do it on my
>own OATS site? Any input would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Randall T. Flinders
>EMC Test Engineer
>Emulex Corporation
>[email protected]
>
>
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by sledgehammer.com with SMTP;31 Jan 1997 06:37:12 -0800
Received: from smtp1.cerf.net by oz.sledgehammer.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id GAA11555; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 06:38:00 -0800
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by
smtp1.cerf.net (8.8.5/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA09932 for
<[email protected]>; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:00:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
AAA20414 for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:34:42 -0500 (EST)
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:29:22 -0800
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
X-Sender: [email protected]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: <[email protected]>, [email protected]
From: Mark Briggs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FW: Australia EMC test requirements
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Mark Briggs <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
Received: from natinst.com by hail.natinst.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.0 Enterprise) id 2F26AB20; Fri, 31 Jan 97 15:57:06
-0600
Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3])
by natinst.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id PAA12278; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:57:05 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA16719
for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:35:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: 31 Jan 1997 09:30:00 -0800
From: "Steve Chin" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: FW- Australia EMC test
To: [email protected], "Simon Johnson" <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 3.0.2
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Steve Chin" <[email protected]>
X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
X-Listname: emc-pstc
X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
