EMC Regulation in Australia and New Zealand

Australia has arrived at the end of a phased implementation of mandatory EMC regulations. New Zealand already has EMC rules, but it is harmonizing them with Australia's under a Trans-Tasman Compliance Framework, to take effect by the end of 1999. The result will be a set of common procedures, standards, and compliance marks for the two countries.

New Zealand has had mandatory EMC standards since the 1930s. In 1987, IEC recommendations were adopted, and in 1993 New Zealand formalized the supplier's Declaration of Conformity as the principal regulatory instrument for EMC. The agency responsible for administering compliance in New Zealand is the Communications Div., Ministry of Commerce.

The first Australian EMI standard, adopted in 1959, drew its content from British, Canadian, and CISPR publications. Later EMI standards more closely followed CISPR models. Since 1992, Australia and New Zealand have adopted joint national standards that carry the prefix AS/NZS. The newer EMC standards are generally similar to those of CISPR or CENELEC, with some deviations. Empowered by the Radiocommunications Act of 1992, the Spectrum Management Agency (SMA) in Australia had been developing EMC guidelines in conjunction with other agencies such as AUSTEL and the Civil Aviation Authority, as well as with local industry. Early plans were widely published, with the framework being formally introduced on January 1, 1996. The SMA merged with AUSTEL in 1997, forming the Australian Communications Authority (ACA).

Both Australia and New Zealand have assigned levels of interference risk to classes of products for the purpose of proportioning the compliance requirements and test lab accreditation, if any. The compliance levels differ slightly between the two countries, as indicated in Table I.

As with the EMC Directive, the Australian and New Zealand EMC frameworks target the following:

The related protection requirements are supported by two levels of standards:

The timetable for implementation of Australia's EMC framework began ticking on January 1, 1996, but mandatory compliance has been required only since January 1, 1997, for new products placed on the Australian market after that date. For products already on the Australian market by the first day of 1997, mandatory compliance was not required until January 1999. The stages of implementation begin with those products intended for residential, commercial, and light-industrial environments, as shown in Table III. Heavy industrial products are not covered.

As is the case with the European Union's (EU's) EMC Directive, products that fit the scope of a product-family standard must comply with that standard. The generic emissions standard may be applied only where no suitable product-family standard exists.

Where standards specify both Class A and Class B limits, the relevant environments are identical to those described by the FCC. Products intended primarily for residential applications should conform to Class B limits; commercial and industrial products may meet Class A limits.

The ACA intends to review the applicability of the EMC framework to other environments such as heavy industry and complete installations. Only after consultation with suppliers, industry groups, and other agencies will additional rules be proposed. New Zealand plans to follow a similar path of "light-handed" regulation when its EMC regulations take effect in 1999.

The two compliance routes established under the Trans-Tasman EMC framework parallel the EU's structure. The alternatives comprise:

Whichever route is selected, it is the responsibility of the supplier—that is, the manufacturer or importer—to complete the same series of regulatory steps:

Unlike its EU counterpart, the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity must be held in either Australia or New Zealand by the supplier responsible for placing the product on the market (that is, the domestic manufacturer, importer, or agent). The declaration must be signed by someone who has the authority to act as a company representative. The acronym "ACN" refers to the Australian Company Number, an identification number issued by the ACA to domestic entities at their request. There are no corresponding identification numbers for declarations filed in New Zealand.

The term compliance folder is used to refer to the documentation that the supplier must assemble and maintain to support the Declaration of Conformity. The compliance folder may be kept outside Australia, but it must be produced quickly upon written request for audit purposes.

A compliance folder will normally contain five elements:

In general, product EMC testing may be performed by any laboratory. There are, however, some advantages to using an NATA- or TELARC-accredited or NATA MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) laboratory. These advantages include the following:

This part of the compliance folder cites the specific primary EMC standards applied to the product. It may also include references to the quality systems that govern product consistency (e.g., the ISO 9000 series). Any instructions to the user regarding installation, operation, or cabling required to ensure EMC conformity are also appropriate for inclusion here.

When product conformity is not or cannot be based on published standards, the supplier must use a TCF. The Trans-Tasman EMC framework's TCF is modeled closely on the EU definition.

The supplier must first submit a draft TCF to an Australian competent body, in writing, and warrant that no other application has been made to any competent body for the same device. The draft TCF must contain both a general and a technical description of the product. The general description should provide

If everything is in order, the competent body will add its technical report to the TCF. This report will contain the following elements:

Under the EMC framework, appropriate labeling is required before a product may be offered for sale in Australia or New Zealand. Australia has defined several labels incorporating the C-tick mark (see Figure 1). The mark should adhere to specific guidelines for appearance and location, as follows:

Suppliers must apply to the ACA for permission to use the C-tick mark to demonstrate EMC conformity. The mark itself is the property of the ACA. (Similar constraints apply to the A-tick mark for telecom compliance.) There are three C-tick label formats for the supplier to choose from, depending on the nature of the information to be displayed on the label. One shows the registered name and address of the supplier; one provides the ACN only; and the third gives the C-tick supplier code only, as issued by the ACA.

Figure 1. Australian C-tick label formats.

Figure 2. The RCM logo.

New Zealand imposes similar conditions on the use of the C-tick mark, but adds a degree of warmth to the EMC process with its communication-friendly logo. Compliance with both EMC and safety requirements can be indicated using the regulatory compliance mark (RCM), accepted in both Australia and New Zealand. Figure 2 illustrates the RCM, and Table IV indicates where these marks apply.

Enforcement

The ACA and Ministry of Commerce plan to administer the EMC framework much as the FCC checks for compliance with its Part 15 rules in the United States—that is, by auditing documentation and products and responding to complaints.

The Trans-Tasman Framework permits random documentation audits, but only after giving prior written notice to the supplier involved. Certified copies of documents such as test reports will satisfy the audit, but the original Declaration of Conformity must also be produced. If the compliance folder is found to be defective, the regulatory authority may ask to see all documentation and/or require three random samples of the product to be tested by a competent body.

If a complaint of interference from or to a device is received, the regulatory authority will first verify the complaint; if sufficient cause is found, a formal audit of the responsible supplier will be conducted.

Under the Trans-Tasman Framework, filing a false or misleading complaint constitutes an offense. Other offenses include such product-related violations as

The ACA may demand that any interfering or nonstandard device that causes interference be shut off until the problem is corrected. This is usually the first regulatory recourse available in most jurisdictions having EMC regulations. The ACA may also pursue prosecution of parties responsible for marketing or supplying nonconforming products. Product seizure and forfeiture are also permitted, as are monetary penalties for individuals and companies. Punitive fines have been proposed but not yet adopted. Penalties in New Zealand for EMC violations are specified in the Radiocommunications Act of 1989 and may be as high as $30,000 for an individual and $200,000 for a corporation.

Certain categories of products are not required to comply with the EMC framework. Some of these exemptions are similar to the FCC's exemptions under Part 15, including the following types of equipment:

While filing for the C-tick mark in Australia is currently free, New Zealand has established a fee structure for submitting Declarations of Conformity. The charge varies from about NZ $60 (for radio equipment) to NZ $171 (for unintentional radiators for companies outside New Zealand).

Both Australia and New Zealand provide extensive access to government regulations and technical standards (but not AS/NZ standards) on the Internet. Documents may be viewed or downloaded from http://www.aca.gov.au (Australia) or from http://www.govt.nz (New Zealand).