Conformant
Launch planner Guides API docs

Market access · updated 2 August 2026

Which countries require in-country testing and a local representative?

These are two different requirements, they cost different things, and a market can demand one without the other. Conflating them is the most common budgeting error in hardware market access — and it usually surfaces after the schedule is already committed.

Why they are not the same thing

In-country testing is about where the measurements happen. The regulator will not accept the report from the lab you already used; the device must be re-tested by an accredited laboratory inside their jurisdiction. You ship samples, you join a queue, you pay a second time for tests you have already passed.

Local representation is about who is legally on the paperwork. The regulator will only issue a certificate to an entity established in their jurisdiction. That entity is often the certificate holder — which becomes a commercial problem the day you change distributor.

Thailand illustrates the split neatly: NBTC certification requires a local representative but does not require local testing. China is the reverse shape — formal type testing must be completed in mainland China, while a local representative requirement is not established in the sources we hold.

The matrix

MarketRegulatorIn-country testingLocal representativeForeign test reports
BrazilANATELRequiredRequiredNot accepted
ChinaSRRCRequiredNot establishedNot accepted
ArgentinaENACOMRequiredNot establishedNot accepted
IndiaWPCNot requiredRequiredNot established
ThailandNBTCNot requiredRequiredNot established
South AfricaICASANot requiredRequiredNot established
IndonesiaSDPPINot establishedRequiredNot established
PhilippinesNTCNot establishedNot requiredNot established
JapanMICNot establishedNot requiredNot established
TürkiyeBTKNot requiredNot establishedAccepted (RED)

Read "not established" literally. It means no citable source in our dataset states the rule either way. It is not a quiet "no". Treat those cells as questions to put to the regulator, and note that our API returns them as not_established rather than false for exactly this reason.

What each requirement adds

In-country testing

  • Sample logistics. Units have to clear customs into the testing market, often under a temporary import regime.
  • Lab queue. You are scheduled against local demand, not your launch date.
  • Duplicate test cost. The same measurements you already paid for elsewhere.
  • Iteration risk. If the device fails a local limit, you are debugging remotely across a time zone.

Local representative

  • Entity setup or appointment. Either you have a legal presence or you contract someone who does.
  • Certificate ownership. If the representative holds the approval, switching partners can mean re-certifying.
  • Ongoing obligation. Representatives typically carry duties for as long as the product is on the market.

Planning around them

The practical sequence that works:

  1. Confirm band availability first. There is no point planning testing for a radio that cannot be allocated spectrum — see 6 GHz availability by country.
  2. Split your launch list into local-testing markets and the rest. The local-testing group sets your critical path.
  3. Start local-representative appointments in parallel — they are contractual, not technical, and they are frequently the thing still outstanding at the end.
  4. Check certificate validity for anything you plan to sell for more than two years. Brazil expires in 24 months for most categories.

Get this for your own launch list

Conformant returns both flags per market, alongside band availability and the source behind each answer, in a single call. The response includes roll-ups — local_testing_markets and local_rep_markets — so the two groups above fall out of the API rather than out of a spreadsheet you maintain by hand.

No integration required: the launch planner runs it in your browser with your own API key and exports to CSV, JSON or SQL.

Open the launch planner