It looks like these rules a apply.

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2013/2/907/index.php

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2013/2/908/index.php

There's an advantage to modular approvals, though a similar requirement
probably applies to the unintentional radiator portion of a system using
an RF module.

Good luck!

Harold

> Hi,
>
> I'm asking here for views rather than true legal advice=85.although I kno=
w
> there are a couple of PIClisters who are quite FCC-savvy, so they might b=
e
> able to offer a definitive answer.
>
> I understand that when certifying a device under Part 15 as an intentiona=
l
> radiator (our is in the 2.45GHz spectrum -- Bluetooth Low Energy, but
> we're using a baseband chip and RF stage rather than a module) changing o=
r
> adding components is an absolute no-no except if they're 'direct
> equivalents'. No problem there.
>
> But what about if we were to get a device certified that had, say, sensor
> A, sensor B, and sensor C loaded on the board and then *remove* one or tw=
o
> of those sensors for a specific application or market? If the whole
> device/assembly is certified, can we do that?
>
> I will ask the testing house too, but wanted to see what y'all thought as
> well -- I'm sure the testing house will say "you should get each variant
> tested" :)
>
> Thanks!
>
> -m
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>


--=20
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
Not sent from an iPhone.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.