FCC/EMC/CE compliance, Product vs Kit, do I actually need it?

[janekm]

Just adapt the text from this TI addendum: http://focus.ti.com/download/aap/pdf/evm_guide.pdf regarding non-comformity with FCC/CE.

If TI can get away with it, and their lawyers approved that piece of text, it'll be alright for the rest of us I reckon (the question of whether that type of legalese can be considered a copyrighted work and how close you can be to it without infringing on it is left as an exercise for the reader)

[johnnyfp]

Yeah, but I wonder if the various FCC departments could enforce resellers of TI products that the end recipient of said product must 

have electronics training and observe good engineering practice standards

.

I bet some burocrat will actually put that in some legislation somewhere one day (it's the sort of thing they live for).

[janekm]

Yeah, but I wonder if the various FCC departments could enforce resellers of TI products that the end recipient of said product must 

have electronics training and observe good engineering practice standards

.

I bet some burocrat will actually put that in some legislation somewhere one day (it's the sort of thing they live for).

I suspect it's more for the peace of mind of the lawyer "you plugged the launchpad into the mains and are unhappy you got a burn? Oh we'll be happy to refund your purchase price if you bought it in the last 30 days...)

I wonder sometimes how anybody can still sell soldering irons given the number of times I've managed to burn myself with those

[johnnyfp]

Ah well you didn't burn yourself in the first 30days of purchase, so all bets are off 

[SirNick]

Isn't it amazing how fast you can move when you touch an iron at a few hundred degrees?  It's over before you even get the first waft of burnt flesh.

[sleemanj]

A quote sometimes attributed to none other than Grace Hopper (paraphrased)

   "it's easier to ask forgiveness, than to get permission"

In general, I agree with a certain video blogger on this when he has commented in the past about certification for kits and liability for published designs and such, words to the effect of... stop worrying and just do it.

Kits, should not require certification, it's a nonsense to suggest any way that they could be.
Components and parts do not require certifications.  Certification for a resistor?  Inductor?  IC?...  no of course not, that's silly.
The certification of some components (especially radio "modules") you see, is only to make it easier to certify the whole product. There is no "inheriting" of certification.

And finally, a small hobby product, especially in kit-form, or even partial kit-form, is like a billionth of a percent of a drop in the ocean against the tide of completely dodgy and downright lethally dangerous products, sold retail in shops to the unwashed masses, all day, every day, in their millions.

Case in point, I see like me, the OP is in NZ,

  http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10359655/Auckland-stores-sold-unsafe-adaptors

this business was warned several times by the authorities that their travel adapters were not just illegal but a death waiting to happen, they continued selling them after being warned several times, and finally they were fined.  If they had complied at the first warning (and come on, does anybody think anything electrical in those cheap-chinese-stuff shops has any certification at all?) that would have been the end of it.

[mcinque]

Just adapt the text from this TI addendum: http://focus.ti.com/download/aap/pdf/evm_guide.pdf regarding non-comformity with FCC/CE.

If TI can get away with it, and their lawyers approved that piece of text, it'll be alright for the rest of us I reckon (the question of whether that type of legalese can be considered a copyrighted work and how close you can be to it without infringing on it is left as an exercise for the reader)

That's a nice hack but:

TI is selling many products, and most of them are certified. A company that sells ONLY a product or two, both uncertified, it's quite suspicious.

With those document you should sell your products only to qualified personnel (and I guess you cannot promote your product with ads as you normally would do), otherwise - as example - anyone could sell legally LSD by simply making a document of that kind (i.e. only for scientific or meditation use) don't you?

Of course the same kind of disclaimer of TI is applied when you purchase a VHF radio without a proper radio license. The seller cannot deny the purchase. But in that case the law is written for the final user, while the CE/FCC is for the manufacturer.

Most of all, if you get sued because your local authority suspect you're doing a crime, you must have the money to defend yourself. TI surely has a big amount of money. Me not. 

[joshhunsaker]

The real question is where do you plan to sell this?

That is the first determinant of what you need to worry about.  Additionally, you do not technically need to comply with any standard set by UL/TUV/CSA/ETL/MET or any other non-government entity.  Their "standards" do not represent federal laws, specifically for the U.S. that would actually encompass the statues/acts enacted by Congress overseen by the commissions granted authority to enforce them.  The relevant commissions for the U.S. in terms of a wi-fi device would be the FCC, CSPC and potential overlap (for installation and usage methods) into OSHA and maybe even the EPA (depending on the device).  As you can see plainly here, as far as product safety goes there are zero explicit regulations on (for example) power supplies from the CSPC:
http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Regulations-Mandatory-Standards-Bans/

Now, this says nothing of state and local governments, which are also free to regulate any litany of wacky/random/variegated things at all, except where possibly prohibited by federal laws which would supersede or long-respected precedent of some kind.  Most people assume that because you see UL/TUV/ETL listing everywhere (and normally it's a composite Canada and US listing) that they are somehow "required".  It's simply not true.  The reason they are so ubiquitous is that major distributors, resellers, retailers and manufacturers have very strict rules about what kind of certification standards they will require for product safety.  At the end of the day, Walmart and the person/manufacturer/hobbyist selling the dangerous device are the people bound to get sued so, yes... for explicitly or even just potentially dangerous stuff it's well within their best interest (as a large retailer or manufacturer) to have a boatload of relatively strict certifications by respected 3rd party testing companies slathered all over the product label.

Dealing with the FCC is a bit different.  The only way you can potentially avoid an expensive test is if your equipment for manufacture falls under needing only "verification", which means as long as you can effectively prove that the equipment meets the requirements for the particular subsection or specific electronics type it falls under, you're good.  This can be done through any non-accredited lab (this is relatively important because, well... how do you define a "lab"?  My R&D room probably qualifies as long as my certification schedule looks dandy I would bet...).  Equipment requiring a DoC (Declaration of Conformity) gets a bit trickier because now you have to use a lab that's accredited by the NVLAP, A2LA or MRA.  Luckily, for both these situations nothing needs to be submitted directly to the FCC to keep on file.  It's squarely on you (good luck!)

The tough part is when you have to actually certify your product with the FCC.  That requires explicit filing with the FCC or a Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB).  There's a ton of really good information (surprise) directly from SparkFun on this stuff:
https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/398

Hopefully, in this situation your device simply falls under subpart B of part 15 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is an unintentional radiator.  Being that the OP is describing a radio/wi-fi/whatever, this is sadly not the case.  That's governed by subpart A, which (lucky you) is the most restrictive regulation you can fall under for a consumer electronics product (which makes perfect sense because the FCC's whole job is watching over radio-spectrum bandwidth usage).  You can typically get away with a cert cost of around $1k for an unintentional radiator, but an intentional one is more in the realm of $5k+.

Now CE is something else altogether.  People who are talking about them in the same sentence as if they were somehow in any way homogeneous have not seen this process happen.  CE has all sorts of different directives.  Here's a tidy little list:
http://www.newapproach.org/Directives/DirectiveList.asp

If you ship a product with some other type of already certified power supply, you can normally get away with avoiding the low-voltage directive (2006/95/EC) which makes things quite a bit easier.  Now you absolutely no matter what have to still worry about RoHS (directive 2011/65/EU), possibly RTTE (directive 1999/5/EC) and definitely EMC (directive 2004/108/EC).  My knowledge on CE is not quite as good but I believe it is common to be able to put the CE label on a device if you are quite sure that it abides by the pertinent directives and while explicit certification by an accredited body is "awesome", it is not typically critical.  I could be wrong on this.  All the products I oversee have explicit CE certification for various directives (also spendy) so I've not dealt with trying to subvert utilizing a lab here.

But wait!  Are you going to ship to Mexico or Japan or Australia or Canada?  At all?  Then you'll also need to worry about NOM, PSE, C-Tick/A-Tick/RCM and also IC!  How fun.  You'll probably want this in that case:
http://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/guide_to_global_emc_requirements_2007.pdf

So yes, in retrospect on one of the most misunderstood areas of electronics ever... there is good reason why people hate compliance laws.  They are a pain in the ass and super expensive (normally).  But then, so is the tooling cost of a basic plastics housing.  Man, building things is really hard eh? 

[sleemanj]

Man, building things is really hard eh? 

Building it is the easy bit.

In aviation: When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly.

[mcinque]

My knowledge on CE is not quite as good but I believe it is common to be able to put the CE label on a device if you are quite sure that it abides by the pertinent directives and while explicit certification by an accredited body is "awesome", it is not typically critical.

Every manufacturer can sign a CE declaration of conformity about his product, under his responsibility.

If you declare autonomously your product as CE compliant because "you think" or "you're confident" it is, you're taking your own responsibilities.

If your product is tested by an authority (or if it's reported by a competitor) and it is not compliant, you are going thru these consequences:

1. if the product is dangerous (voltages, safety etc), you must immediately retire it from the market - if it's not dangerous you can go directly to the step 2
2. you must necessarily modify your product to comply with the CE directives (so you must pass the compliance tests and prove it)
3. you are fined for counterfeiting the CE mark (this since you're declaring false: your product is not compliant while you declared it was fully CE approved, this is legally considered fraud); here the fines goes from € 5.000 to €40.000 but they are generally "in the middle", so €20.000

Even with a explicit test report, the manufacturer is always the only responsible for his product (test reports always specify that the report is valid ONLY for the device tested and NOT for the entire production).

Of course, having a certification by an official body allows you to prove that you're in good faith and of course you cannot be prosecuted for fraud.

[nuno]

Talking about EU.

Last time I gathered data on this (some 6 years back), EMC directive applies to finished appliancies or components to be incorporated in finished appliancies (say a USB xxx), with "finished appliance" being defined as "any device or unit that delivers a function and has its own enclosure” (have this reference in my notes: “Guide for EMC directive, 2004/108/EC, 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.6, and flowcharts 1 and 2”). For unfinishes apliancies the EMC compatibility responsable is the end-user.

Having writen this, I've seen old KITs (the really simple stuff, like 2 transistor multivibrator dual LED blinking) CE marked. I have no idea which directives the marking refers too, or if it was just a dumb marking by the manufacturer "just in case". As already said here, CE consists of many directives and you need to check which ones apply to your product.

Also, it's not mandatory to have certification by an independant authority, you can declare the product compliant and mark it CE, and you'll be held fully responsible in any event. If the product comes from outside the EU, the seller/importer is the responsible. I don't know how this applies to stuff bought directly by the end-user (let's say someone in EU buys from sparkfun) but I suppose the end-user is the responsible, that seems to be the general rule.

No EMC compliance is needed if it can be demonstrated that the device doesn't emit (I don't remember how this is worded) by design, say an " LED and switch" circuit.

There's a document from the Europpean Comission with the title "Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach" available on the net; sorry I don't have a link, the interested parties will have to search.

[mcinque]

For unfinishes apliancies the EMC compatibility responsable is the end-user.

Are you sure of what are you writing? Because exactly in that document there is the attached chart that specifiy that if it's for the end user - finished or not - it's NOT EXCLUDED from the directive.

Having writen this, I've seen old KITs (the really simple stuff, like 2 transistor multivibrator dual LED blinking) CE marked. I have no idea which directives the markingrefers too

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

Also, it's not mandatory to have certification by an independant authority, you can declare the product compliant and mark it CE, and you'll be held fully responsible in any event.

You would declare the compliance without knowing if that product you're imported is compliant? So you would accept to declare the false?

I don't know how this applies to stuff bought directly by the end-user (let's say someone in EU buys from sparkfun)

If you are importing a product as a professional/company, you are the responsibile. And you MUST have a CE declaration of conformity for that product, otherwise it cannot be put on the market.
If you are importing a COUPLE of products as a end user, if you don't cause any troubles to TV reception or Police radios, you can sleep fine.

but I suppose the end-user is the responsible, that seems to be the general rule.

Well, no. The only responsibles for a product are:
1st - the manufacturer
2nd and 3rd - who put the product on the market (importer and/or seller)

the FINAL USER (so not a professional or a company) is NOT, in any case, responsible for buying and using a commercial product that doesn't require a specific local license(VHF radios, High power lasers etc).

No EMC compliance is needed if it can be demonstrated that the device doesn't emit (I don't remember how this is worded) by design, say an " LED and switch" circuit.

Indeed. But we're talking about electronic devices. Almost any electronic device has an active component (relay, mosfet, transistor, MCU etc). And with an active component you cannot avoid EMC tests.

Any attempt to run a business selling electronic devices avoiding EMC is doomed to fail: if you get caught and your product is not up to standard, you are fu**ed. And since a single competitor or even an ass*ole ex friend can report your product to the local authority, I think that today we should think well about what we are selling.

Authorities simply ignores what we read between lines on the documents. They apply what the law specifies.

[Precipice]

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

There's the sub-9KHz exemption, for stuff that 'can't possibly radiate'. (Yeah, we've all seen stuff that can't possibly radiate - "Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't".) But the exemption is real.

[mcinque]

You're right.

But you're still missing RF immunity and ESD discharge tests. Oh, this IF your product is ONLY battery operated.

If it's powered by mains, you miss also the conducted radiation, surge immunity, harmonics emissions test.

There is no way to avoit that PITA! 

[nuno]

For unfinishes apliancies the EMC compatibility responsable is the end-user.

Are you sure of what are you writing? Because exactly in that document there is the attached chart that specifiy that if it's for the end user - finished or not - it's NOT EXCLUDED from the directive.

What I mean is that if you, as an individual, build a device and put into operation (that is, you didn't buy it fuly assembled and working), to the law you are the EMC compliance responsible. I'm not a lawyer nor I've gonne through this kind of process, it is my interpretation of the law.

At the time I consulted the transposed laws for my country, which transpose to national law the EU Directive nr. 2004/108/CE. In that law (in my language) "appliance" is defined as "any finished device, or combination of finished devices, commercially available as a single functional unit, destinated to the final user, (...)". In my most wild dream about EMC compliance you could be exempt by selling a device where the end-user still has to finish it to be operable, like having to solder a switch or a pair of components or something (so it is an un-finished appliance); in this case the end-user is the responsible for the EMC compliance. That is, openly and explicitly pass the EMC compliance burden to the end-user. If this is a valid interpretation of the law, it could work in some markets. Meanwhile I simply quit the idea of selling any kind of finished "appliance".

Anyways, in the chart, where is the path for "unfinished appliance"?

Having writen this, I've seen old KITs (the really simple stuff, like 2 transistor multivibrator dual LED blinking) CE marked. I have no idea which directives the markingrefers too

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

Are you sure? I guess that would made semiconductor sale to require EMC compliance/CE marking.

Also, it's not mandatory to have certification by an independant authority, you can declare the product compliant and mark it CE, and you'll be held fully responsible in any event.

You would declare the compliance without knowing if that product you're imported is compliant? So you would accept to declare the false?

I said only that it is not mandatory to go through independant test. That's all I said.

I don't know how this applies to stuff bought directly by the end-user (let's say someone in EU buys from sparkfun)

If you are importing a product as a professional/company, you are the responsibile. And you MUST have a CE declaration of conformity for that product, otherwise it cannot be put on the market.
If you are importing a COUPLE of products as a end user, if you don't cause any troubles to TV reception or Police radios, you can sleep fine.

Not talking about importing, talking about the "non-business average joe" end-user.

but I suppose the end-user is the responsible, that seems to be the general rule.

Well, no. The only responsibles for a product are:
1st - the manufacturer
2nd and 3rd - who put the product on the market (importer and/or seller)

Again, talking about the end-user, the non-business consumer. Importing/selling is another thing, which has already been mentioned and that I also mentioned.

[mcinque]

What I mean is that if you, as an individual, build a device and put into operation (that is, you didn't buy it fuly assembled and working), to the law you are the EMC compliance responsible.

EMC directive is intended for business manufacturers, not hobbysts. It's impossible to have a "end-user" that is responsible for the compliance of a device. When the end-user becomes responsible is because he has started a business without even knowing it, but at that point he is not an end-user anymore.

For hobbysts there are local laws that regulate any issues: for example if I, as a hobbyst, build a tx-rx radio that uses police's radio frequencies, I will surely be sued if I use it. The same if I build something that generates emissions that disturbs the TVs in the neighborhood.

I'm not a lawyer nor I've gonne through this kind of process, it is my interpretation of the law.

Nor me, and this is the trap. We try to interpret the laws, while we should only follow them.
Moreover, many lawyers does not really care about your risks. If anything goes wrong, the problem is YOURS, not theirs.
We should think to the scope of the directive, not searching a way to avoid its rules.

In my most wild dream about EMC compliance you could be exempt by selling a device where the end-user still has to finish it to be operable, like having to solder a switch or a pair of components or something (so it is an un-finished appliance)

Me too wish that this can be applicable. But unfortunately this is not possible.

The EMC directive WAS NOT written as a whim, it was written to allow us to have devices that DOES NOT interfere with each other.

If manufacturers could avoid EMC simply putting 2 unsoldered components in the package (i.e. TVs solds as a kit, solder 1 capacitor and you're gone), don't you think that:

1. we would have our houses full of devices that disturb each other
2. companies would save millions avoiding A. all engineering, filters and shielding used in today's devices B. test instruments and RF anechoic chambers C. salaries to engineers that manage EMC compliance

Anyways, in the chart, where is the path for "unfinished appliance"?

Follow SUB ASSEMBLIES path.

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

Are you sure? I guess that would made semiconductor sale to require EMC compliance/CE marking.

Should companies that produce steel have some special authorization because with the steel they made you can produce a gun? Does anyone ask you a license to buy potassium nitrate, sugar and coal? Components are raw material and are not required to be certified. And probably they cannot, because you can use them in different ways: even if the manufaturers were obliged to do EMC compliance, you could have a "compliant transistor" but you could use it as an amplifier to radiate RF, intentionally or not. And all the compliance of the manufacturer would be useless.

I said only that it is not mandatory to go through independant test. That's all I said.

Yes, and I ask you:

• would you like to assume the risk to declare its compliance without being sure of it?
• how can you be sure of its compliance if you've not tested it?
• how can you test it properly without expensive, calibrated instruments and a proper setup (LISN, Spectrum analyzer, probes, antennas, RF anecoic chamber etc) and most important, the necessarly knowledge?
• Would you take the risk to be reported by a unsatisfied client, a competitor or an as*hole and so be possibly sued and receive a € 20.000 fine?

Me not.

[T3sl4co1l]

Also don't forget the purpose of the regulations.

If a company is selling equipment that causes undesirable interference with existing products, they are making a problem.

If a company is selling equipment that is disturbed by existing products [that meet regulations], they are making a problem.  More a problem for themselves in this case, but it's also a matter of consumer protection.

If a product doesn't meet regulations, but it doesn't interfere with anything close enough to matter, then no one cares.

If a person builds their own piece of equipment, once, it's probably not a big source of interference (annoy the neighbors?).  Whereas if you sell a hundred thousand of them, a lot more people are going to be having problems.

Whatever the case may be, you must weigh the risks and costs.  In an ideal world, all products are tested 100%; in the real world, there's a chance that you'll get called out on it, and a chance that you'll get fined or whatever, and a chance that you'll get sued by various parties (distributors, end users, or other affected parties).  Especially these days.  That's simply the cost of doing business.

Tim

[nuno]

EMC directive is intended for business manufacturers, not hobbysts.

Does EU have a different emissions limiting law applicable to hobbysts only?

Anyways, in the chart, where is the path for "unfinished appliance"?

Follow SUB ASSEMBLIES path.

"Component"
a part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle.
Therefore, not an appliance, finished or not.

"Subassembly"
a unit assembled separately but designed to be incorporated with other units into a larger manufactured product.
Again, not an appliance, finished or not.

My view is that the chart isn't applicable at all at "unfinished appliancies", which goes back to the law's context that it doesn't apply to unfinished appliances (yes, my interpretation!). Yes I'm not a lawyer, you're not one too, we're here discussing personal opinions/interpretations.

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

Are you sure? I guess that would made semiconductor sale to require EMC compliance/CE marking.

Should companies that produce steel have some special authorization because with the steel they made you can produce a gun? Does anyone ask you a license  (...)

I interpreted your original sentence as saying that since there's a transistor in the kit, it must be EMC compliant.

I said only that it is not mandatory to go through independant test. That's all I said.

Yes, and I ask you:

• would you like to assume the risk to declare its compliance without being sure of it?
• how can you be sure of its compliance if you've not tested it?

(...)

I repeat, I only said it was not mandatory to have it go through independant test. Independant test. If you want to go compliant or not and how, it's entirely up to you!

[Neilm]

Transistor = Active component = Possible radiated emissions = EMC

There's the sub-9KHz exemption, for stuff that 'can't possibly radiate'. (Yeah, we've all seen stuff that can't possibly radiate - "Amplifiers oscillate, oscillators don't".) But the exemption is real.

There currently is talk of lowering that level.

I have only ever seen one product that was nodded through on the 'can't possibly radiate' - it consisted of 5 resistors a diode and a moving coil. It was an accessory for a specific device and was placed into the device which then formed a faraday cage around it.

[Simon]

CE marking is a bit murkey because initially you have to decide which directives apply to you and then read and understand them. Only some dictate that you do certain test and may tell you where to do them as well in order to meet approval. In theory you can slap a CE label on a product and trust to your good design intentions and luck. Large complicated items will need testing but smaller ones can probably have responsible assumptions made but at the end of the day you are responsible for what you design and sell.

[johnnyfp]

So basically for a hobbiest like me that want to sell a few kits that has anything reselmbling a frequecy pulse is to make it and sell it from China! Or fork out a small fortune to get it compliant. Else risk the wrath of the Compliance government, or am I missing something? Because that sux.

It also begs to know how much of this "RF Compliance" stuff is just dated burocratic stuff that doesn't actually effect anything these days anyway. I remember when I had my first 1900/75 baud model, it would drop the line in a heartbeat till I wrapped the modem in foil, so yes then compliance was needed, but today? How much of it is actually needed? I understand electrical compliance, and safetly and all that, but not so much the RF side of things.
If a components manufacture makes a module and then stick a "I'm compliant" with caveat getout clause, why can't I pass that same clause to my customer, just because I'm a small fish, I get penalized.

My head hurts now, with all this information overload.

Maybe I'll sell the Kit as "Wifi possible",with the wifi module switched off by default, and state that I'm not responsible if you make pin 12 an output and high which switches on the Wifi module. And that you should get FCC/EMC compliance before doing so.

[Simon]

if your using a wifi chip and are following the guidelines I'd not be too fussed for low quantities. The main EMC headache can come from poorly designed SMPS

[T3sl4co1l]

So basically for a hobbiest like me that want to sell a few kits that has anything reselmbling a frequecy pulse is to make it and sell it from China! Or fork out a small fortune to get it compliant. Else risk the wrath of the Compliance government, or am I missing something? Because that sux.

Going back to the "affected parties" line of reasoning, if your product is small, is not designed to radiate, and doesn't use an isolation barrier (which is the main downfall of switching supplies), it's unlikely to interfere with much of anything.  Even if it does, it may be too unpopular, or too infrequently used, to generate enough complaints.

Suppose you begin selling a product that sucks: maybe, it's got a few switchers on it, and the layout was bad, you know it's noisy.  But you just want to get it out there.  Now suppose the product miraculously starts taking off gangbusters, and everyone and their uncle wants one (maybe you made the next Arduino or something, I don't know).  Now, you have the market expectation to pay for EMC, so at worst, you get a loan to pay for it, do the revision, then pay it off selling them.  Can also call it "New and Improved!!", suggest upgrading the old crappy ones... or just take the hit and recall them (assuming you can).

Officially speaking, you are in violation during the first part.  That doesn't mean automatic punishment, but it does mean taking on some risk.  These sorts of things generally escalate, so maybe your first hint will be a C&D or something like that.  If you keep selling the offending product, the nastygrams will escalate.  (Or maybe they are trigger-happy and just slap you with a fine right away, I don't know.)  If you take action right then, you can at least minimize your risk.

Tim

[Bandit-Technical]

Okay, I'm late for the party maybe, I have carefully read the whole thread, and instead of starting similar thread decided to post here and of course, the most important, trying now to draw conclusion from the inputs of all people posting here. I believe it should be interesting for many people including those who were posting here.

I will post some examples, and specific questions and conclusions for that example.

Example 1:

For a signal measurement AND/OR generation board with mixed-signal (not only digital) electronics. Below are details:
* it has plastic enclosure
* it has connector for 5V power Input
* it has SMA output and input jacks

QUESTION 1: According to the Flowchart 2 from this document:
http://www.f2i2.net/Documentos/LSI/emc/Guia_2004_108_CE_Mayo_2007.pdf

Can I take the route highlighted with pink in the pic1.png attached?

In other words, it will be finished appliance but not for an end user, but rather another developer? Or I cannot do it, because another developer is ALSO *end user* ?

QUESTION 2: For the above example product, what do I need to do then? Do I need ANY certification? If yes, which ones? (For example the AD9739A signal gen board from Digilent doesnt seem to have ANY certifications! yet its a board capable of generating >2GHz signal! I mean come on, does it mean that if someone reports Digilentinc, they can be sued to hell/fined by FCC or other organizations?
So what is the safe path for the above Example 1 ?

Example 2:

Again, signal generator/signal meter, but this time, it is a module which is supposed to be plugged as a PC accessory, its power supply jacks are similar to big 4-pin PC Power pins with 12V 5V and GND pins.

OR

It is plugged into PCI-E slot, with jacks and additional stuff on the side coming out of PC box.

QUESTION 3: For the Example 2, what certifications if any are needed?

[janekm]

Okay, I'm late for the party maybe, I have carefully read the whole thread, and instead of starting similar thread decided to post here and of course, the most important, trying now to draw conclusion from the inputs of all people posting here. I believe it should be interesting for many people including those who were posting here.

I will post some examples, and specific questions and conclusions for that example.

Example 1:

For a signal measurement AND/OR generation board with mixed-signal (not only digital) electronics. Below are details:
* it has plastic enclosure
* it has connector for 5V power Input
* it has SMA output and input jacks

QUESTION 1: According to the Flowchart 2 from this document:
http://www.f2i2.net/Documentos/LSI/emc/Guia_2004_108_CE_Mayo_2007.pdf

Can I take the route highlighted with pink in the pic1.png attached?

In other words, it will be finished appliance but not for an end user, but rather another developer? Or I cannot do it, because another developer is ALSO *end user* ?

(snip)

Keep in mind that sometimes it can be a bit of a judgement call, and a lot depends on the acceptance of risk within the organisation that is certifying a device. The CE mark and related regulations give quite a lot of lee-way to organisations to decide on which route to certification to take, what testing to perform, etc (with some exceptions around safety/medical/intentional radiator etc). I take the view that any commercial entity inevitably involves certain risks, and a decision has to be made on how to manage those risks (as an extreme example consider patents... It is completely infeasible to ensure that a product you put on the market doesn't "infringe" on anybody's patent).

Anyway, regarding question 1, the user of your device is considered an end-user; the distinction is not between a professional user who may use your product to aid in the development of another product but whether the thing you are selling is a completed product in its own right, or a sub-component of another product. Devboards fall into something of a grey-zone; some dev boards do not have a defined purpose on their own, but can be combined with other circuitry to produce prototypes of a completed product.
You might find the legal language that for example TI include with their dev boards (and even the recent Sensortag, I though that first one they did get certified but can't remember for sure?) to "weasel out of" certification (http://www.ti.com/lit/ml/sszz027j/sszz027j.pdf):

1.1 EVMs are intended solely for product or software developers for use in a research and development setting to facilitate feasibility evaluation, experimentation, or scientific analysis of TI semiconductors products. EVMs have no direct function and are not finished products. EVMs shall not be directly or indirectly assembled as a part or subassembly in any finished product. For clarification, any software or software tools provided with the EVM (“Software”) shall not be subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein but rather shall be subject to the applicable terms and conditions that accompany such Software
1.2 EVMs are not intended for consumer or household use. EVMs may not be sold, sublicensed, leased, rented, loaned, assigned, or otherwise distributed for commercial purposes by Users, in whole or in part, or used in any finished product or production system.

BTW I believe this is part of the reason why the model of selling breakout boards, dev boards, Arduino shields, etc is so popular for small companies getting started in producing hardware, it gives a somewhat reasonable approach to avoiding some of the certification burden. If your example 1 didn't have a case, and you called it a "dev board", you'd be very unlikely to be asked for certification (but no guarantees, there's no such thing in business really...).

Another thing to keep in mind that devices which are not FCC certified can be difficult to import into the US, and those without CE mark can be difficult to import into Germany.