"John Proctor" wrote in message
...
In article BFLSb.8210$fD.4843@fed1read02,
"Ed Price" wrote:

"John Proctor" wrote in message
...
At the risk of stirring the pot some more....

In Australia we have C-Tick. Any equipment coming into the country
with
active electronics must be C-Tick compliant.

I thought that the C-Tick is just the mark of compliance; the system is
called the Framework, and it is to that which you must be compliant.

This requires at a minimum
compliance with the CE EMC standards. FCC standards are not recognized
as they are too lenient. It is amazing how many manufacturers (US and
Taiwan based) do not have CE approval for their products when to
export
them to any decent sized market outside the US this is a firm
requirement.

I also find it amazing that an Australian may export freely into the USA
market by simply technically complying with the FCC regulations, but an
American has to hire an Aussie or Kiwi as a local agent to "handle" his
paperwork. Amazing, isn't it?

BTW, does China recognize the C-Tick?

Ed



Ed,

C-Tick is the mark or copyrighted symbol along with A-Tick (for
telecommunications devices). They are however collectively applied to
the standards required to get approval. Many labratories worldwide are
capable of testing to CE or Australian standards Wiley in Huntsville
Alabama comes to mind ;-) All that is needed by an importer is a copy of
the test result to indicate testing and compliance to the accepted CE
standards. The importer must be a company resident in Australia. After
all who are they going to put in jail for non-compliance ;-) China
certainly produces C-Tick and A-Tick compliant product. Low end Netgear
stuff is made in the PRC. I wouldn't have a clue about their domestic
requirements but whatever they are you can be sure they will be
protecting/promoting their internal electronics industry! Compliance is
a design issue not a manufacturing one.

John VK3JP



John:

I was tweaking you for saying that the FCC requirements are "too lenient"
for Australia's needs. Of course, that is an Aussie's right, to define what
is needed by his country. But the other side of that specification is an
admission that Australia must be some especially delicate environment,
needful of greater regulatory protection.

My comment about local agents was that Australia erects a one-sided tariff
barrier by requiring a local agent. The USA should reciprocate for
Australian products. Surely somebody's brother-in-law needs a job.

My comment about China was to remind him that, although the Australian
market is not insignificant, there is a very big and nearby market where
C-Ticks don't get no stinkin' respect.

Actually, my favorite protective market is South Korea. Everything is filed
by the local agent, in Hangul. Perhaps the USA might require Korean products
to be filed in English and Cherokee? g

Compliance is a design, manufacturing, and not the least, political issue.


Ed
wb6wsn