Defining Compliance Responsibility Between Radar Modules and End Products

Compliance & Certification

Context & Problem Framing

Compliance in mmWave radar systems depends on both the sensor module and the end product into which it is integrated. Regulatory responsibility must be clearly defined to ensure legal conformity and system reliability.

For 77 GHz Directional Motion & Zone and 60 GHz Human Presence radar sensors, misalignment of compliance responsibility between suppliers and OEMs often leads to certification delays, non-conformity, or operational risk.

Clear boundaries between module compliance and system-level certification are essential to avoid ambiguity in regulatory accountability.

System-Level Assumptions

• OEMs integrate radar sensors into products with documented electrical, mechanical, and thermal assumptions.
• Module suppliers provide compliance data supporting CE, RED, FCC, and other applicable frameworks.
• Deployment conditions, including environmental exposure and intended use, influence final certification requirements.
• Compliance evaluation spans design, integration, and operational validation phases.

Core Engineering Considerations

Responsibility for compliance is shared: sensor modules must meet performance and regulatory specifications, while OEMs must ensure integration into end products maintains conformity.

Documentation, traceability, and controlled firmware revisions are critical for maintaining compliance over product lifecycles for both 77 GHz Directional Motion & Zone and 60 GHz Human Presence radar sensors.

Deviations in integration, enclosure design, or environmental exposure can impact compliance status, even when modules meet individual regulatory requirements.

Trade-offs & Implications

Assigning compliance responsibility too narrowly may reduce upfront engineering effort but increases system-level risk during audits or market release.

Assigning responsibility collaboratively ensures legal and technical alignment but requires clear documentation and cross-functional verification.

Early architectural and compliance planning mitigates risk while supporting multi-site deployment.

Common Misinterpretations

• Assuming module certification alone guarantees system-level compliance.
• Believing integration into a compliant enclosure automatically transfers certification responsibility.
• Ignoring environmental and operational conditions as part of the compliance scope.

Boundary & Responsibility Clarification

Module suppliers are accountable for delivering sensors meeting regulatory standards.

OEMs are accountable for ensuring that the integrated system maintains compliance across operational and environmental conditions.

Clear delineation of responsibilities prevents certification gaps and reduces operational risk.

Engineering Takeaways

• Define and document module vs. system-level compliance responsibilities.
• Maintain traceability of firmware, hardware, and integration changes.
• Validate compliance at system level, not only at module level.
• Incorporate environmental and operational scenarios into compliance planning.

Scope & Disclaimer

This article addresses compliance responsibility for 77 GHz Directional Motion & Zone and 60 GHz Human Presence radar sensors from an integration and lifecycle perspective. It does not provide regulatory certification instructions or legal advice.