Two authorisation routes exist for a charger in the United States, and choosing the wrong one costs a second test programme plus a relabel of everything already produced. The route follows the product’s radio behaviour and the party who takes responsibility for it, so the decision belongs with the specification rather than with the shipping documents.
FCC authorisation for a charger: the route decides the cost
The product’s radio behaviour decides whether the route runs through a certification body or through a supplier’s declaration.
A product that intentionally radiates follows the certification route, which involves a recognised body issuing a grant. A product that does not intentionally radiate follows the declaration route, where the responsible party signs a statement of conformity and keeps the supporting records. A charger is usually in the second category, and a charger with a wireless control interface, a Bluetooth link or a similar function moves into the first.
The two routes differ in who signs, how long they take and what has to be on file, and the difference is administrative as much as technical. Because the classification follows the product’s functions, the cheapest moment to settle it is when the specification is written.
Route 1: certification through a recognised body
This route produces a grant and an identifier attached to the product.
Samples are tested against the applicable requirements, the results go to a body recognised for the purpose, and the body issues the authorisation. The product then carries the identifier, and the applicant commits to keeping the production units consistent with what was tested. This route is the one that applies to intentional radiators, and it is the reason a product with a radio function cannot be handled as a simple declaration.
Route 2: the supplier’s declaration of conformity
The responsible party tests, signs and keeps the records.
For a product that does not intentionally radiate, the responsible party arranges testing against the applicable limits and signs a declaration that the equipment conforms. There is no grant and no identifier: the obligation is the record behind the signature. The declaration names the responsible party, and that party has to be able to produce the measurement data and the description of the product it applies to.
Where the wireless function and the accessory change the route
Two items move a programme between routes more often than any other.
The first is a radio interface, whether it is a control link, a display connection or a companion application, because intentional radiation follows the certification route. The second is the mains adapter supplied in the box, which is its own product with its own records and its own responsible party. A programme that specifies the adapter after the charger is tested ends up running two authorisation activities in series rather than in parallel.
What each route costs, and what drives the figure
The cost drivers are different for the two routes, which is why a single quotation comparison is misleading.
The declaration route is driven by the number of measurement configurations and by the documentation the brand has to assemble and hold. The certification route adds the body’s work, the filing and the identifier, and its schedule depends on the queue at the body and on how complete the submission is. Across both, the largest avoidable cost is a change made after the testing, because the measurement has to be repeated and the documentation reissued.
| Element | Declaration route | Certification route | Cost driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applies to | Products that do not intentionally radiate | Products that do | The specification |
| Who signs | The responsible party | The recognised body issues the grant | The role the brand takes |
| Output | Declaration and supporting records | Grant and identifier | The route |
| Schedule | Testing plus documentation | Testing, submission and body queue | Completeness of the submission |
| Main risk | Records that do not match the product | A product that changes after the grant | A late change |
The records the rules expect you to keep
The declaration route is a record-keeping obligation with a signature on top.
The records normally include the measurement data and the test report, a description of the product sufficient to identify it, the responsible party’s details and the declaration itself, kept for as long as the product is offered. Where the product carries an identifier under the certification route, the production units have to remain consistent with what was authorised, and any change to the radio or the enclosure is assessed against the authorisation rather than assumed to be equivalent.
Where money is lost on a US programme
Four places, and three of them are decisions rather than defects.
Classifying the product after the design is frozen; specifying the adapter late; changing the enclosure after the measurement; and leaving the responsible party unnamed until a retailer asks for the declaration. Each adds a repeat activity at the point where the schedule is least flexible, and each is avoided by settling the four items when the specification is written.
FAQ
Does every charger need FCC certification?
Not in the sense of a grant. A product that does not intentionally radiate is normally handled through a supplier’s declaration supported by testing, while a product with a radio function follows the certification route. The specification decides which applies. A product that does not intentionally radiate is normally handled through a supplier’s declaration supported by testing, while a product with a radio follows the certification route.
Who signs the supplier’s declaration?
The responsible party for the equipment, which is the company placing it on the market under its own name. That company has to be able to produce the measurement data and the product description behind the declaration. The responsible party is the company placing it on the market under its own name, and it has to be able to produce the measurement data behind the declaration.
Can the factory hold the declaration instead?
Where the factory is the responsible party for the product as sold, it can. Where the brand sells under its own name, the declaration and the records belong with the brand, which is the arrangement worth writing into the supply terms before the first order. Where the brand sells under its own name the declaration and the records belong with the brand, which is worth writing into the supply terms.
What changes if the product later gets a Bluetooth feature?
Adding a radio interface moves the product into the certification route, which is a new authorisation with its own testing, submission and identifier rather than an amendment to the existing declaration. Adding a radio interface moves the product into the certification route, which is a new authorisation with its own testing, submission and identifier rather than an amendment. Ask for the identifier in writing.
How long should the records be kept?
For as long as the product is offered and, in practice, for as long afterwards as a query could reasonably arise. The records also have to keep describing the product that ships, which is the part that maintenance should focus on. Keep the records for as long as the product is offered and for as long afterwards as a query could arise, and keep them describing the shipped product.
Next step
Send the product’s functions, the accessory arrangement and the channel to Wecent Group through the contact page. The reply states which route applies, what the records would contain and which party would be named as responsible. Related reading: OEM and ODM charger manufacturing, our charger factory and charger manufacturing services. External references: US FCC Part 15 rules, US Consumer Product Safety Commission, UL standards and certification, Intertek testing services, TUV testing services and IEC standards.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does every charger need FCC certification?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Not in the sense of a grant. A product that does not intentionally radiate is normally handled through a supplier’s declaration supported by testing, while a product with a radio function follows the certification route. The specification decides which applies.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Who signs the supplier’s declaration?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The responsible party for the equipment, which is the company placing it on the market under its own name. That company has to be able to produce the measurement data and the product description behind the declaration.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Can the factory hold the declaration instead?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Where the factory is the responsible party for the product as sold, it can. Where the brand sells under its own name, the declaration and the records belong with the brand, which is the arrangement worth writing into the supply terms before the first order.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What changes if the product later gets a Bluetooth feature?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Adding a radio interface moves the product into the certification route, which is a new authorisation with its own testing, submission and identifier rather than an amendment to the existing declaration.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How long should the records be kept?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”For as long as the product is offered and, in practice, for as long afterwards as a query could reasonably arise. The records also have to keep describing the product that ships, which is the part that maintenance should focus on.”}}]}