[sci.electronics] Selling Electronics Kits: FCC Approval ?

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