John, Your understanding is correct. From around October last year, Austel refused to modify or provide new permits unless the permit holder was resident in Aust. This was an Austel decision, although I believe it had no legal basis. The new Act and labelling instrument makes this law.
The declaration of conformity must be signed by either the manufacturer of the item (if made in Aust), or The importer of the item in manufactured outside Australia. As noted in clause 6 of the labelling instrument, you can't apply the label (the compliant or non compliant mark), without being either of the above. A subtle point is that an overseas manufacturer can apply the label only with written permission from the Australian importer (compliance folder holder). I presume a copy of this authorisation should reside in the compliance folder. Best Regards. > > I see people starting to take notice of this on TREG so I'd like to ask > a question to all of you. > > Reading the stuff on the ACA www page there is reference to exiting > AUSTEL permits. The notes seem to imply that there will be an > (approximate) 18 month period of transition where all existing PTC's > will have to transition to the new labeling requirements. This is > unless they significantly modify the equipment (when it will apply > immediately). > > Now the new requirements mandate the declarer/labeler (in PTC language > equivalent to the "approval holder") to be the manufacturer (if > manufacture occurs in Australia) or the importer. This is different to > the PTC rules which simply require a legal entity. > > It therefore appears that non-Australian companies that have legally > obtained AUSTEL PTC's through non-trading daughter entities may now have > to transition the ownership of the "PTC/right to label & declare" to > other parties (such as the distributor) within the time frame. Does > anyone else read the instrument like this or does it allow the existing > PTC holder to self declare in variance to the rules for new equipment. > It doesn't seem clear to me which applies in this particular situation. > > Does anyone out there have a view on this? > > I look forward to seeing more questions on this interesting legislation > > JohnP.
