Good to know - FCC regulations

[R.G.]

So, keep abreast of what your legal responsibilities are, and know your regulations.  End of story.

That's the problem Mark. You *can't* know your regulations.

Here's an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's article "The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws"

In 1998, the American Bar Association performed a computer search of the federal codes looking for the words "fine" and "imprison," as well as variations. The ABA study concluded the number of crimes was by then likely much higher than 3,000, but didn't give a specific estimate.

"We concluded that the hunt to say, 'Here is an exact number of federal crimes,' is likely to prove futile and inaccurate," says James Strazzella, who drafted the ABA report. The ABA felt "it was enough to picture the vast increase in federal crimes and identify certain important areas of overlap with state crimes," he said.

None of these studies broached the separate—and equally complex—question of crimes that stem from federal regulations, such as, for example, the rules written by a federal agency to enforce a given act of Congress. These rules can carry the force of federal criminal law. Estimates of the number of regulations range from 10,000 to 300,000. None of the legal groups who have studied the code have a firm number.

"There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime," said John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor who has also tried counting the number of new federal crimes created in recent years. "That is not an exaggeration."

Note that (1) the attempt to count was by the American Bar Association, not some undergrad at a local junior college, (2) that's only US Federal law, and only the actual statutes, not the regulations that are enacted by the bureaus that have the force of criminal law and change without legislative action, and (3) that does not include state, county, and local laws and regulations that can put you in jail as well as taking your property.

In the limited area of safety standards and EMI regulations, no testing lab will issue a certificate saying "you pass all the regulations and legal requirements". I know, I've worked with them. The best you'll get is a statement saying "we tested this and we did not find any way it fails the requirements on this set of testing". Those are very different statements.

[Mark Hammer]

Yes, audio sibilants go well past 9KHz, and we put them on wires. I think the distinction is that we don't sibilate steady all the time. Also most audio has to be protected (shielded) against external interference, so is less likely to cause interference.

Excellent points.  Shielding what's inside against what's outside also means that what's outside is shielded against what's inside.

But that's a matter of increased likelihood that the product will pass inspection with ease.  RG's point is that it is often hard to know in advance exactly what those requirements may be.

[Ice-9]

So are mobile phone manufacturers exempt from these laws in some way, as I can't get through a day without phones interfering with my computer speakers, TV, guitar amps etc. If I want to record some tunes in my home studio I have to remember to leave the phone at some other location of my house or turn it off altogether. Is this phone polling sound a different issue than what the FCC rulings are addressing?

[Gus]

If you want to see a frenzy, wait for when - not if - someone gets electrocuted by a custom/boutique amplifier that wasn't built to safety standards.

Good post

[CodeMonk]

So are mobile phone manufacturers exempt from these laws in some way, as I can't get through a day without phones interfering with my computer speakers, TV, guitar amps etc. If I want to record some tunes in my home studio I have to remember to leave the phone at some other location of my house or turn it off altogether. Is this phone polling sound a different issue than what the FCC rulings are addressing?

Things like cell phones and, more in "our" realm, wireless mic and instrument systems have other hoops and regulations they have to jump through (I'm assuming).
Those items are designed to emit a signal through the air.
What I think the FCC is "concerned" with, are electronic devices that are not, by design, meant to emit a signal (RF or whatever), but may still do so, even if its unintentional.

From : http://www.effectsbay.com/2014/05/fcc-regulations-for-pedals/

Within the scope of radio frequency devices is a sub-class known as Class B digital devices. The majority of digital musical instrument products fall into this category. A digital device is defined as "an unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles) per second and uses digital techniques.

There are two basic classifications of digital devices or RF radiators: products that are not meant to communicate wirelessly with other devices are known as Unintentional Radiators (for example most guitar pedals, synthesizers, amplifiers); products that do feature wireless communication are called Intentional Radiators (for example wireless mics, wireless guitar systems). Class B digital devices are considered Unintentional Radiators.

I found that page to be a very interesting read.

My main concern with this, is I have a project (commercial, but on indefinite hold due to finances) that makes use of a charge pump.
I've spent a sh*tload of time on this project and while I could make it work without a charge pump, It works better with one (and gives me more options) than without one.
I haz a BIG sad over this.

[amz-fx]

Here is a link to the New Sensor compliance document for those interested:

http://www.namm.org/sites/www.namm.org/files_public/New%20Sensor%20FCC%20Compliance%20Guide_v8_0.pdf

regards, Jack

[quad]

What about shielding? Doesn't that prevent a device from leaking out electromagnetic radiation?

[R.G.]

What about shielding? Doesn't that prevent a device from leaking out electromagnetic radiation?

Maybe. I have been directly responsible for working with a testing lab to certify EMI compatibility of a number of things. Shielding is designed into all commercial products ... check - most commercial products, as EH can testify - and it does odd things. Mostly shielding is fine for low frequencies and low powers. But it has to be continuous, no gaps or joints, which is impossible. It also sometimes happens that simply putting more RF power into a box with shielding forces the RF to flow out the wires coming into it.

It's worth noting before this gets to being a hysteria that low RF power being radiated is one of the certification criteria. If your box only creates minimal power, it may pass the criteria without any shielding at all. Or if the circuit board is laid out well for RF compatibility, it may not radiate effectively, so little RF power is emitted.

The big issue is testing and certification. You should not certify your stuff passes without testing, of course. And testing is expensive. As a practical matter, the home handicraft boutique pedal maker cannot afford testing, period. So the home builder is always going to have to rely on being under the radar - which is a ping of RF emission itself. 

[italianguy63]

Anybody have experience of what having a "widget" tested would cost?

[slacker]

I think the link about EHX mentions about $1500 for a test a the certification,  that's assuming it passes first time of course.

[wavley]

Yes, audio sibilants go well past 9KHz, and we put them on wires. I think the distinction is that we don't sibilate steady all the time. Also most audio has to be protected (shielded) against external interference, so is less likely to cause interference.

Excellent points.  Shielding what's inside against what's outside also means that what's outside is shielded against what's inside.

But that's a matter of increased likelihood that the product will pass inspection with ease.  RG's point is that it is often hard to know in advance exactly what those requirements may be.

I was just being facetious when I mentioned sibilance, but also somewhat pointing out the absurdity of how things are potentially selectively regulated.  It used to be that the FCC would put the smack down on things (like my air conditioner) that are actually polluting the spectrum, but I'm hearing from HAMs more and more (I work with a lot of them) that the FCC is unresponsive to these things, they used to be able to report a source when they found it and you would get a visit from the FCC.  I actually live in the outskirts of the National Radio Quiet Zone because of the observatory and Sugar Grove, you would think that things like my air conditioner would not be tolerated, but no, we have our own RFI mitigation team that tracks down polluters and repairs them, I imagine Sugar Grove does too but I really have no interest in meeting anybody from there.

For me the silliness lies in the wording of these regulations and the sleeping giant waking up and regulating dirt boxes when there are thousands of ductless HVAC systems crapping up the airwaves all over the place.  I'll have to go check the audio files I recorded of my amps going "zing zing zing" but I'm pretty sure a good chunk of that noise was right around 9k. 

[italianguy63]

I'm still a card carrying HAM (WD4CSA).

It was a good thing when FCC would check on spurious transmissions when un-tuned equipment and antennas would blow out TV reception for blocks around (before cable).  Or, hunting people with illegal 1KW transmitters, etc..

But a 9V buzz box.  Really?  Silly.  I think this will work itself out.  I don't think it has been really thought through yet.  Which is typical of the lumbering giant called government.

MC

[karbomusic]

But a 9V buzz box.  Really?  Silly.  I think this will work itself out.

I think it will as well and I highly doubt most tiny/little guys need to freak out (odds wise) that the FCC is going to knock on your door if you occasionally build and possibly sell a pedal here and there. That isn't advice, it's just my opinion of those odds and the sensibility of it. However, here is where it always goes south..

You do just that, build pedals on request for a person here and there, no big deal and you are never even noticed.  However, you do it really, really well and 5 years later you have built some larger business (almost without realizing it) that distributes lots of pedals and now you are part of the industry and on the radar.

You got in the habit of not chasing down regulations as a small time hobbyist and before you know it you are in big trouble; by the time you showed up on the radar you had forgotten all about that regulation that was previously (odds wise) insignificant. Now it is significant and you are in trouble.

This happens everywhere, not just pedals and FCC. People start small and feel they don't really need to act like it is a business, they then become successful and miss stuff until it is too late. Business is the real deal, IOW you can really shoot yourself in the face if you take the route of "I'm creative and don't need to know business ". If one is going to do business, get some schooling on the business aspect or there is a risk of complete failure or worse. Owning a business is the one thing where something you didn't even realize can get you in large amounts of trouble.

Mark is right, study it and be aware now and in the future. I think there is no need to think the sky is falling, just be smart and aware about what you do.

[armdnrdy]

I think there is no need to think the sky is falling,

I don't think you quite understand......
The sky IS falling!

[karbomusic]

I don't think you quite understand......
The sky IS falling!

That does it, I am now going to design and build a pedal called "Chicken Little". 

[italianguy63]

I personally think you will see (crystal ball here), for example, TI will test their own product (i.e. charge pump IC) for a particular purpose (i.e. 12V voltage inversion), and show it is not a threat to pace-makers around the world.  They will make the testing papers available to end-users and the FCC since they are the ones that manufacture the component they want to sell, and have the pockets to have the testing done.  

I know.  It makes too much sense.

MC

[armdnrdy]

That does it, I am now going to design and build a pedal called "Chicken Little".  

And stuff in all of the RF radiating components that the enclosure will handle whether they do something in the circuit or not.

Then...put a label on it DARING the FCC to come after you!  

[Jdansti]

Does anyone know if the Burst Box is FCC compliant???   

Seriously, any company planning to sell pedals needs to include in their business plan to consult an attorney who can explain all of the regulations, have their products tested, file the proper forms, and if necessary, provide the proper labeling.  Ca-Ching $$$

I agree that the gov't bureaucrats over reach and selectively enforce the laws (regardless of which party is in office), but any business person would be negligent by not playing by the rules, whether he agrees with them or not.

[R.G.]

The penalty for violating Class B limits was at one time up to $10,000.
Per day.
Per unit.
I don't know what it is now. Or how it's enforced. Or upon whom.

"Flying below the radar" is another version of "I know it's illegal, but I hope they do selective enforcement".

What was the line? Step out of line and the man come and take you away.

[karbomusic]

Seriously, any company planning to sell pedals needs to include in their business plan to consult an attorney who can explain all of the regulations, have their products tested, file the proper forms, and if necessary, provide the proper labeling.  Ca-Ching $$$

Right, part of a business plan is to help you determine if the business can be profitable before diving in including the expense for regulations, statutes etc.. As long the regulations are applicable they need to be top of mind, properly evaluated and considered up front. If one is successful and purposely tries to fly under the radar, they eventually end up in the news.