FCC Fine for Kit Assembler

To prevent anyone from being mislead by your post title, SSTRAN was not fined. The fine was levied against someone who assembled the SSTRAN kits and sold the completed kits.

I think it is a matter of interpretation as to how much "preassembly" would be in compliance. The only preassembly SSTRAN offers is to mount a surface mount IC if requested.

Thanks for the link and I hope this helps.

Neil

I recall some years ago, that there was a manufacturer who offered a CB "kit". Maybe it was Heathkit. In order for the unit to be FCC certified for legal use, the transmitter portion was pre-assembled and the rest of the "kit" had to be put together.

So I guess, that if someone offers a kit with the audio section, knobs, jacks, and toriods pre-assembled, and the transistor oscillator and the power RF section is not built, then would everything be OK?

Also what happens if some buys a kit builds it, then a year later decides to sell it?

Or if someone buys a assembled kit, and then sells that a year later?

What happens if someone say from Canada sells assembled kits, they would be out of the FCC's jurisdiction.

According to this FCC legal statement:

The term “kit” is defined in Section 15.3(p) as “[a]ny number of electronic parts, usually provided with a
schematic diagram or printed circuit board, which, when assembled in accordance with instructions, results in a device subject to the regulations in this Part, even if additional parts of any type are required to complete
assembly.” 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(p).

Does this mean that if a company/individual supplied a fully assembled and working circuit board and all the end user had to do is assemble it into a case, connect some wires, add an antenna etc. that this would still be legal as a kit in the eyes of the FCC?

If that is the case, then the Antique Radio Collector could legally assemble the PCB (which is really 99% of the work) and provide "kit" instructions to install the PCB into the case.

Would this be OK? Is anyone a lawyer here?

Gerry

Yes, but the Canadian kits would be stopped at the border by the Feds - so those US customers would not be able to buy from you.

Gerry

As I ponder the "apparent liability" of Mr. Mann, without knowing anything about him or his company, I conclude there is something wrong here. If one visits his website one gets the impression (at least I did) that he is a hobbyist whose prime interest is in old radios. Extrapolating beyond my data it appears that he offered for sale the assembled kits perhaps just so other collectors who are not technical wizards could enjoy their hobby. This is only my speculation.

Now, what is wrong here? If the AMT3000 meets the part 15.219 requirements what difference does it make whether it was built by the end user or someone such as Mr. Mann? Literally, the rules do make the distinction, but practically I don't.

The good news is that in the NAL the FCC rep. stated that kits are generally acceptable. The bad news is that he/she said "generally". I am tempted to ask them what exceptions he/she had in mind to qualify their opinion with the word generally.

Understanding the rules is similar to trying to pick up a ball of mercury.

Neil

Neil

Neil, I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that he did indeed violate the rules by selling assembled kits. However, I get the impression that the FCC was not out to get him. The way the notice reads, it seems that they fined him the least amount possible, and for only one violation. They could have fined him for each transmitter he sold.

The other point worth noting is that the FCC action was in response to a complaint. So, was it a disgruntled customer or perhaps someone who sells type accepted transmitters? We'll probably never know.

I get the impression that the FCC had to respond to a complaint, found a clear violation and did the minimum required of them to deal with it. As to whether the assembled kits were doing anyone any harm, they most likely were not. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the way our justice system works, however.

Mojoe,

I am aware that Mr. Mann did violate the law. I was addressing the outcome of what he did, which in my mind, is no different than you or I building a tx. from a kit. I think it is clear to all observers that the letter of the law prevailed here.

A great number of the FCC NALs, etc. begin with the phrase "in response to a compaint" and I don't really know what this means in this context. Could it be that the compaint resulted from an observation by an agent who then complained? This would be proper but the label may cloud the issue.

Once upon a time I read where the idea of allowing folks to build their own part 15 transmitters was to allow for experimentation. This is all well and good, but it gets complicated when the presumed skills needed are supplanted by the availability of kits. Fortunately, the opinion in the link was favorable to kits, yet by my reading the rules are not clear on this.

It appears to me that some of the rules and "official" interpretations are vague and maybe that is best in that it allows latitude, but when one risks $$$$$$ in fines because the rules are so written (such as the ground lead length stuff) something is wrong.

Neil

FCC regulation 15.203 also page 14 (top left corner) AMT 3000 book says that the FCC "Antenna Requirement" rule prohibits manufacturers from incorporating a readily available connector for the antenna. (I just bought the SSTRAN and putting it together now as I type this).

Page 14 goes on to say "To comply with this rule we must instruct you to permanently attach the antenna wire by soldering it to the board. If you as the builder choose to install antenna/ground jack on the board, the KIT WILL THEN BE CONSIDERED TO BE MODIFIED BY THE USER AS REGARDS FCC COMPLIANCE AND SSTRAN CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE."

I also built a Ramsey AM 25 and did not see any "prohibition" about the antenna ground jack. In fact, I don't recall any word about it.

So maybe the person selling the unit was selling it with the jack installed, perhaps...just perhaps if he did not install the jack and followed page 14 instructions and soldered the wire to the board as instructed...maybe the turn out would have been different.

what worries me is this is the 3rd Part 15 AM related fine this year. Could this be a trend. maybe the FCC has gone to strictly and rigidly interpreting the Rules reguarding AM transmitters? sure hope not. hope this is just a fluke or something more to the stories. maybe they are attempting to clear the band of unlicensed signals in prep for nightime IBOC?

Thank You,

Rev. Robert P. Chrysafis
Universal Life Ministries
http://www.ulc.org

Moderator Hunterdonfree
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hunterdonfree

There is more interest on FM than AM, witness the daily sales of 5 watt FM transmitters on Ebay, these are from China. Just out of curiosity. I emailed the seller and asked if there are any customs hassles, he said that there are none. If the FCC was really that concerned about non compliant transmitters, they would intervene the shipments at the border.

Saying that, I really belive that part 15 AM is low on the FCC's radar. Furthermore, a majority of part 15 AM users seem to prefer the exbanded band, where there is a lot more room to broadcast. I don't think the IBOC nightime will be all that a concern, at night as soon as I am out of my driveway...my signal is gone due to the skywave interference on the X-band.

Even if they did clear the band of us part 15-ers for prep of nightime IBOC, what good will that do? It would be a waste of manpower and taxpayer money if they did target us.

As regards:

"So maybe the person selling the unit was selling it with the jack installed, perhaps...just perhaps if he did not install the jack and followed page 14 instructions and soldered the wire to the board as instructed...maybe the turn out would have been different."

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that. The NAL appears to be for marketting a functional working transmitter that was not FCC certified. That makes the person a "manufacturer" by definition, even though they probably never thought of themselves that way.

The nature of the original complaint is something I wish was listed in the FCC actions. It could have been someone turning him in because they were aware he'd be considered a manufacturer marketting uncertified units.. It could have been a simple as someone who was using one of the ones he built that got a visit from the FCC and told them they didn't build it, they bought it already built.

But I *think* that what sort of antenna connector was on the transmitter would only have been an issue if he had been trying to get it certified, since that spec seems to be in the section on what a unit a manufacutrer wants to market needs in order to be certifiable. So I kind of doubt it would have excused him if it had been left off.

Daniel

I just sent the FCC a letter to get the 'original complaint' sent to the FCC Enforcement Agency to figure out who sent the complaint to them about the builder of these AMT3000 transmitters.

Under the Freedom of Information Act in the FCC anyone can obtain complaint information or anything else not restricted.

We will know who sent the complaint... I will post the letter when it's sent to me.

Radiopilot

The "10 meter" ruling for example of non functional/non working? How about this for a "example" of whats legal and whats not.

A brand new amateur radio linear amplifier could not have 10 meters working "out of the box". ( I belive the rule has now since been changed).

The buyer would have to do a mod to make it work on 10 meters, the mod would said to have been provided by the manufacturer upon proof of a valid ham license. This rule was meant to keep CB 11 meter operators supposedly from buying amateur radio amps and using them for CB.

Ten meter amplifiers could not be sold per FCC regulations "out of the box". The end user would have to make it functional and even then ten meter amps were only available legally as a part of a complete linear amplifier that featured all the ham bands.

It seems like this is a precedent to go by, unless another ruling is made by the FCC to clarify what is functional or non functional.

One could logically argue if he/she sold partially built transmitters where the end user would have to do some final (but simple) steps to make it functional...then based on precedent of the 10 meter amplifier
example...it would SEEM that would be the course of argument to take.

And since these linears were also sold used, there was no requirement to my knowledge that the 10 meter portion of the amplifier had to be disabled prior to sale. The ruling seems to apply to only new amplifiers from the manufacturer.

Another legal way around this is to "simply" build a kit, send it to the FCC to get it certified. And then when found compliant, the builder can assemble these kits and market them as FCC certified assembled. One "only" needs to submit a sample, pay the "modest" fee of $6,000 to $10,000 fee and wait for approval. They do not need to submit each one they assemble, just one or maybe two.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, one should seek legal clarification from the FCC on what is and what is not and even then consult a lawyer who is well versed on FCC matters and rulings.

Regarding the above complaint which got the assembler of the kits by SSTran (Antique Radios) a fine by the FCC, I can provide a scan of the documents so all can see...

Seems a manufacturer of certified AM transmitters was out to get SSTran into trouble including sending the SSTran website along with the PART15.us nodes to the FCC as evidence SSTRan was selling pre-built units... which of course is false.

The dcuments also suggest that SSTran's unit did not comply with Part 15 reqs., which the FCC dismissed!

Anyone requesting the documents, please send me an email to:

[email protected]

Radiopilot