RE>>FWD>ACA Telecommunications Labeling... 7/7/97
Tony, I wouldn't say that yet. Since we don't want to burden the importer, I think we can still use our agent. Tim any comments!!!!! Thanks - Kamran -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 7/7/97 12:48 PM To: Kamran Mohajer From: Tony Fredriksson Kamran, If this is true, it implies that we will no longer be able to use the guy that we have been paying all that money to (within 18 months from now). Is that the way you read this? Tony -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 7/7/97 9:18 AM To: Tony Fredriksson From: Kamran Mohajer -------------------------------------- List-Post: [email protected] Date: 7/3/97 8:20 AM From: [email protected] 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. ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by Mac2.net.com with ADMIN;3 Jul 1997 08:17:55 -0800 Received: from europe.std.com by unet.net.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA13709; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:15:32 -0700 Received: by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id LAA03882; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:06:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from world.std.com by europe.std.com (8.7.6/BZS-8-1.0) id LAA03833; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:06:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail1.polycom.com ([198.211.123.199]) by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0) id AA24440; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 11:06:14 -0400 Received: by mail1.polycom.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <[email protected]>; Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:01:10 -0700 Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Polycom%[email protected]> From: "Pearson, John" <[email protected]> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Subject: ACA Telecommunications Labeling Notice List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:01:09 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: [email protected] Precedence: list Reply-To: [email protected]
