FCC Part 15 requirements for pedals

[A.S.P.]

In Europe, you *must* have third party testing for EMC emissions to get a CE mark. If they catch you...well..

The CE mark ( you can buy them here, e.g., or draw it yourself (DIY)), (aka: "Confusing Everyone")
just and only says, that a product meets the safetyty-guidelines which are applicable to that specific product.
(for example, a.o.: cannot be swallowed by kids, or : not inflammable...)
The manufacturer or importer can/must stick it onto the product
if it falls under the category of devices that require such a sign,
(which depicts the conformity to applying rules, and must be supplemented by a written declaration, which includes the company`s address, a date, and a representative`s sign).
see here;
here,
and here.

This declaration of conformity has to list the guidelines/rules that apply to the specific product
(and promise that it meets those rules...).

Now if that product is of the kind that needs an EMC (german: EMV) approval,
the product falls automatically in the category to carry the CE sign,
and the specific EMC-rules the product underlies, must be listed there.

The meeting of these EMC-rules, is what needs to be certified/tested
Cenelec/EMC guide

These EMC rules, is the stuff the "FCC" in this thread is after.


The bare "CE" sign must be on any pedal brought onto the european market.
e.g.: F*zzf*ce.... :
In this case however, it would be OK if the manufacturer simply states in the declaration,
that the device is according to guidelines of products of a category that doesn`t underly EMC-test regulations.

[amz-fx]

Upon further research, I found a lab that does full FCC Part 15 compliance testing for $2495.00 (€2089)

That's not in the reach of the average boutiquer but not beyond the mid-size companies like Keeley or ZVex if they chose to get in the digital effects business.

-Jack

[SeanCostello]

So, a few questions:

- How hard is it to shield pedals to conform with the FCC regulations? Is it just the matter of using a metal enclosure, or do you need to be careful with your input and output jacks?

- What frequency ranges are more problematic? It seems like computers can just use conductive paint in some cases, but they are in the hundreds of MHz or higher. For switched capacitor filters, what type of shielding is needed?

- Does anyone have any gut feelings about whether existing BBD pedals conform to these standards?

And, the most cynical question:

- When do you think we will see these FCC regulations being used against boutique pedal makers as a way of stifling competition? Are complaints anonymous, or can you see who filed them? I can see this being used as a rather sneaky technique of shutting down a competitor's pedal line...

Sean Costello

[Noplasticrobots]

"We observe, in this connection, that the total retail sales of the 100,304 unauthorized devices that Behringer sold in the United States after the Bureau initiated its investigation amounted to approximately $28.5 million."

"The record establishes that within the
         past year, Behringer has marketed 50 models of
         unauthorized Class B digital devices within the
         United States.  Consequently, we initially find
         that Behringer is apparently liable for a base
         forfeiture of $7,000 for each of these 50 models of
         unauthorized devices for a total base forfeiture of
         $350,000.  That base forfeiture amount is, however,
         subject to an upward adjustment."

Wow. Don't mess with the FCC.

[amz-fx]

So, a few questions:

- How hard is it to shield pedals to conform with the FCC regulations? Is it just the matter of using a metal enclosure, or do you need to be careful with your input and output jacks?

I doubt that there would be much radiation of signals from the typical pedal

- What frequency ranges are more problematic? It seems like computers can just use conductive paint in some cases, but they are in the hundreds of MHz or higher. For switched capacitor filters, what type of shielding is needed?

The frequency range that your circuit is operating at is the most problematic...  the testing bandwidth extends to 1GHz.

- Does anyone have any gut feelings about whether existing BBD pedals conform to these standards?

It would be fairly safe to say that there are probably no boutique pedals being tested...  you should be able to tell the story on DOD, Ibanez or Boss by looking at the label on the bottom to see if the regulatory statment is listed.

And, the most cynical question:

- When do you think we will see these FCC regulations being used against boutique pedal makers as a way of stifling competition? Are complaints anonymous, or can you see who filed them? I can see this being used as a rather sneaky technique of shutting down a competitor's pedal line...

If one builder is going to comply it is only fair that other makers do that as well... Complaints are not anonymous.

-Jack

[A.S.P.]

another famous example??
(see post#18) 

[Mark Hammer]

Heard an interview on the radio the other day with the company president in this article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060301radioshield,0,1756042.story?track=mostemailedlink

Very interesting stuff.  Whether such paint holds promise for the rest of us remains to be seen.  I'm also curious about the current requirements to use such paint, and whether you have to apply current to make it work, or apply it to make the paint NOT work.

And just before things collapse into a cynical series of diatribes against the FCC and similar government bodies, just try to imagine a landscape where RF emissions was NOT well-regulated.

Now, whether the way in which protocol/policy dictates how conformity to standards needs to be demonstrated may well be a little out of whack with reality on occasion, and the effectiveness of the responsible agency's communications to OEMs and citizens may be less than optimal, but the basic goal of assuring that competition thrives without the community having to be saturated by rampant RF interfering with everything remains.

[Gus]

bump