I was just wondering if the FCC paperwork is available anywhere. I have seen references to FCC testing, but no actual copies of the documentation.
The reason that I am asking is that I am wanting to sell a product based on the Spark, and if I can get the FCC paperwork from you guys, given the nature of my product, I will not need to get further testing done. I can basically self-certify since I am just placing the Spark into a PCB with some resistors, transistors and LED’s. If I was adding more hardware, it would be a bigger call to self-certify, but in this case, things are easy.
Hi Dave. My understanding is that this will cover the CC3000, but will not cover the CPU. Since the CPU operates at a frequency above 9 kHz it is my understanding that it is also a potential EMC issue.
The paperwork I would love to see is a document that says the module as a whole meets FCC, as opposed to just the module. It may well be that with the CC3000 FCC documents and the CPU data sheet that an engineer could issue a statement of compliance without actual testing, but I am not sure.
Thanks Zack. Has Spark done such analysis? Is so, is there a statement available somewhere indicating this? If someone else has gone to the trouble of doing this, I would prefer to rely on their analysis than need to do my own
Sorry, we don’t have any official reports, because there was no paperwork that needed to be filed with any standards body. You would be in the same position; you can simply apply the FCC ID of the CC3000 and call it a day!
It is my understanding that there are two parts to this - EMR (for intentional radiators like the CC3000) and EMC. There are also numerous jurisdictions, including FCC, Europe and ACMA (Australia where I am).
According to the following page,( link, and link ), Title 47 covers testing requirements. Class A digital devices (Commercial/Industrial) can be covered with a Technical Construction File, but Class B (Home) require testing by a certified lab. The Technical Construction File needs to be in writing, and indicate which standards were complied with, if you go down that route.
European and Australian rules are similar, but they have different requirements when testing is needed and when a TCF could be used.
What this all comes down to is that if you want to use the Spark in a product, since the EMC for the product as a whole has not been tested, it is not an easy task to use a TCF, and full testing is needed. If Spark were to produce a full TCF or get the device tested, this would make certification of products based on it much easier.
I for one would be interested in contributing to a kickstarter to get the Spark tested for EMC. After all, I would rather pay a portion of the money for testing rather than have to get the device tested as a whole. It would not take too many of us paying $100 each for testing
Based on my research, it looks like that when it comes to Class B unintentional radiators, it is not possible for a subassembly (like ourselves) to provide modular certification. In other words, if certification is required, the final product needs to be certified.
However, the good news is that it looks like testing for unintentional radiators is pretty cheap; SparkFun says it would cost about $1,000.