I have just noticed something else Rubens. In the instrument Pt 5 section 21.(1) (page 11 for ease!!) there is a note which says that AUSTEL or the ACA intend to RETURN the documents it holds for previously PTC'd items TO THE MANUFACTURER OR IMPORTER. It will be interesting to see what ACA/AUSTEL do where the holder is not a manufacturer or importer (or how they are going to figure out who the actual importer or manufacturer is, if it is not the same person as the PTC holder). It just seems that the instrument has not fully considered this situation and we will have to wait and see. Early days I guess!!
By the way does anyone know where you can get hold of the new Permitted Items Standard (TS 100-1997) Thanks for both your and Martins input. JohnP >---------- >From: Reuben Medding[SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, July 03, 1997 11:19 PM >To: [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re:New Ausralian Regime. John Pearson on ACATelecommunications >Labeling Notice > >Those who attended the Austel Seminar in April 97 got an insight into the >thinking behind the new Act & Regulatory Regime. A Draft of TAG 3/7 was >provided. > >As well as new Regime we have SMA & Austel merging from 1 July hence there >is a hiatus and rulings will be delayed. > >Pre 1 July 97 the Permit Holder had to be an Australian domiciled entity so >Austel could more easily legally enforce regulations. Permit Holder could be >the overseas manufacturers local office, his Disributor or an independent >firm. > >Post 1 July 97 the same applies but read "Supplier" instead of Permit Holder >for new "Applications" > >In both cases the Permit Holder/Supplier must maintain a Compliance Folder >which will be audited. Now Penalties have been dramatically increased for >wilful breaches and incopetence or ignorance is no excuse. > >The Regulations are silent on Variations to existing Permits. It would be >wise to wait for a Ruling once ACA settle down[see above]. > >I see 3 key changes > > a. Self Declaration supported by a Statement of Compliance from an >Approved Lab. > > b. Creation of new Standards moves to Industry Groups under ACA >supervision/reserve power. > > c. The Supplier must ensure goods are C-tick labelled Comply or > "Not-Comply or Permit Number. > >Hope this helps > > > >At 08:01 AM 3/07/97 -0700, you wrote: >>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. >> >> >> >> >> >R. Medding & Associates Consulting Engineers Melbourne Australia >[email protected] Phone (Intnl): 61 3 95328848 Fax (Intnl): 61 3 9532 8849 > >
