mfs@edison.cho.ge.com (Martan) (09/18/90)
I have a nice little widget I have developed that I would like to sell thru the mail in kit (or assembled) form. It's a little X-10 controller that is nothing more than a small single board computer, a powerline interface and lots of software. I have done all of the software myself, but the H/W (except for some cables) is all off-the-shelf. What I want to know is: do I need some type of FCC certification for my product, or is the responsibility of the board maker ? Are there any other certifications, etc that I need to get to sell this thing ? How do I go about getting these ? Any info would be greatly appreciated. Martan mfs@edison.cho.ge.com
moss (Barry Moss) (09/18/90)
In article <9009172016.AA07327@edison.CHO.GE.COM> Martan <mfs@edison.cho.ge.com> writes: > > >I have a nice little widget I have developed that I would like to sell thru >the mail in kit (or assembled) form. It's a little X-10 controller that is >nothing more than a small single board computer, a powerline interface and >lots of software. > >I have done all of the software myself, but the H/W (except for some cables) >is all off-the-shelf. What I want to know is: do I need some type of FCC >certification for my product, or is the responsibility of the board >maker ? Are there any other certifications, etc that I need to get to >sell this thing ? How do I go about getting these ? > >Any info would be greatly appreciated. > You will probably need to get FCC Part 15 Class B approval for this device (EMI emissions standards) and UL safety approvals as well since I your product will be connecting directly to the AC power lines. The responcibility for obtaining these approvals lies with the original equipment manufacturer or whoever sells the products as their brand name (this is not a legal opinion, just an observation of they way things seem to work). The board stuffing shop is not responcible since you've merely contracted them to supply assembly services. If on the other hand you sign over your invention to another company in return for royalties, shares, etc., then they would be responcible. I believe the final responcibility rests with whomever's name is listed on the product as the manufacturer. Barry Moss
hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com (09/19/90)
In article <1990Sep18.163715.3371@mdivax1.uucp> mdivax1!moss (Barry Moss) writes: >In article <9009172016.AA07327@edison.CHO.GE.COM> Martan <mfs@edison.cho.ge.com> writes: >> >> >>I have a nice little widget I have developed that I would like to sell thru >>the mail in kit (or assembled) form. It's a little X-10 controller that is >> >You will probably need to get FCC Part 15 Class B approval for this >device (EMI emissions standards) and UL safety approvals as well >since I your product will be connecting directly to the AC power lines. I was under the impression the standards testing was the responsibility of the 'manufacturer' and thus if the item in question is a kit, the manufacturer is the end user. I see a lot of radio related kits which clearly defy FCC regulations and get away with it since they only sell a bag full of parts. I also believe UL testing is not manditory by regulation, it's just that a lot of organizations will not buy products without the test. Try to find a Korean hair dryer with a UL approval sticker. I could be wrong but that's how it was explained to me by people who should know. John ..................................................................... reply to 'from' address; hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com NOT the 'sender' line address! Someday my sysadm will decide this is a 'real' problem. :-) ..................................................................... All opinions expressed are mine and not Motorolas, their loss. .....................................................................
ftpam1@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (MUNTS PHILLIP A) (09/20/90)
In article <13623@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>, hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com writes... >I also believe UL testing is not manditory by regulation, it's just >that a lot of organizations will not buy products without the test. >Try to find a Korean hair dryer with a UL approval sticker. UL approval is basically to keep you from being sued out of existence if anything ever goes wrong with your product. Lack of approval is prima facie evidence that your are an irresponsible manufacturer. (Since it would be nearly impossible to actually collect on a judgement against an overseas manufacturer, they don't care.) I believe that UL approval (or equivalent) is required by OSHA under certain circumstances. I don't know the details but other testing organizations recently managed to overturn UL's monopoly on something in this area. Other countries (UK, for example) have equivalent standards with the force of law. The approvals and certification process is incredibly tortuous. It cannot really be described but has to be experienced. Suffice it to say that the company I used to work for (then a $10M size company with only a dozen or so products) found it worthwhile to hire an expert full time just to do the paperwork for certification. Most products had to meet many UL standards, FCC Part 15 Subpart J (EMI) FCC Part 68 (telephone interconnection), NEC (national electrical code), CFM (California Fire Marshal). Security equipment (the product line) requires some unique UL approvals, such as the dreaded Attack Test. (How long does it take to disable a system with a sledge hammer?) Philip Munts N7AHL NRA Extremist, etc. University of Alaska, Fairbanks
cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gordon Hlavenka) (09/22/90)
>unique UL approvals, such as the dreaded Attack Test. (How long does it take >to disable a system with a sledge hammer?) I have worked on some equipment intended for use in the cabin of passenger airliners. The FAA has a "Coke test"... They dump Classic Coke on the equipment, let it rot overnight, and then do a functional test and a safety (shorts, smoke, etc.) test. ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us Disclaimer: Yeah, I said it. So what?
rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Robert Wier) (09/30/90)
In article <26fa8a08-429.1sci.electronics-1@vpnet.chi.il.us>, cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gordon Hlavenka) writes: > > >unique UL approvals, such as the dreaded Attack Test. (How long does it take > >to disable a system with a sledge hammer?) > > I have worked on some equipment intended for use in the cabin of passenger > airliners. The FAA has a "Coke test"... They dump Classic Coke on the > equipment, let it rot overnight, and then do a functional test and a safety > (shorts, smoke, etc.) test. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us > Disclaimer: Yeah, I said it. So what? Now, that's really interesting. One of my favorite books is E.K. Gahn's book "Fate is the Hunter", dealing with airline flying. When it was brought to the screen, as usual the movie treatment only superficially resembled the book, but this "Coke" action was a main part of the story. Turns out that there is an airliner crash. The invesigators can't find out why the pilot of 2 engine aircraft turns off the second engine after the first is taken out by a bird. He then crashes, killing everyone except the stewardess. Turns out that there was a cup of coffee put on the one of the instruments panels. When the bird hit the first engine, the coffee spills into the electronics, giving a false engine fire light and the pilot kills the second engine, then crashing. I always wondered if that was a real incident. Maybe so. Or maybe the testing agency saw that movie, too? :-) - Bob Wier -------------- insert favorite standard disclaimers here ---------- College of Engineering Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH or uucp: ...arizona!naucse!rrw