Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Marshall Amplification PLC
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-10-SE-054
NAL/Acct. No. 201132100033
FRN 0020941753 
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  August 29, 2011 Released:  August 30, 2011
By the Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (“NAL”), we find Marshall 
Amplification PLC (“Marshall”) apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven thousand two 
hundred dollars ($7,200) for its apparent willful and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”),1 and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the 
Commission’s rules (“Rules”).2 The noted apparent violations involve Marshall’s marketing of a Class B 
digital audio radio frequency device in the United States without providing mandatory disclosures to 
consumers in the device’s user manual.  
II.  BACKGROUND
2. On July 12, 2010, the Spectrum Enforcement Division (“Division”) of the Enforcement 
Bureau issued a letter of inquiry3 to Marshall in response to a complaint that Marshall was marketing4 in 
the United States a Class B digital5 audio radio frequency (“RF”) 6 device without including in the 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803(a)(2), 15.105(b).
3 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Victoria Marshall, Managing Director, Marshall Amplification PLC (July 12, 
2010) (“LOI”). 
4 Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines “marketing” as including the “sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, 
including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing 
or offering for sale or lease.”  47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4).
5 Section 15.3(i) of the Rules defines a “Class B digital device” as “a digital device that is marketed for use in a 
residential environment notwithstanding use in commercial, business and industrial environments.”  47 C.F.R. § 
15.3(i).  Section 15.3(k) of the Rules defines a “digital device” 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.”  47 C.F.R. § 15.3(k).
6 Section 2.801 of the Rules defines “radio frequency device” as “any device which in its operation is capable of 
emitting radio-frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means.”  47 C.F.R. § 2.801.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
2
device’s user manual the required consumer disclosure language specified in section 15.105(b) of the 
Rules.  The LOI directed Marshall to respond to a series of questions regarding its apparent marketing of 
Class B digital RF devices – specifically, several models of amplifiers.  In its July 28, 2010 response to 
the Division’s LOI,7 Marshall stated that it had verified all of its Class B digital RF devices prior to 
marketing the devices in the United States.8 Marshall admitted, however, that beginning September 26, 
2009, it had marketed in the United States one of its amplifier models, model number MG2FX (“model 
MG2FX”), without including in the device’s user manual the consumer disclosure language specified in 
section 15.105(b) of the Rules.9 Marshall also stated that as of the date of its LOI Response, relevant 
personnel had submitted an internal request to change the user manual for model MG2FX to include the 
requisite consumer disclosure language.10  
3. The Division issued subsequent inquiries to Marshall on March 21, 2011 and April 18, 
2011, seeking additional information regarding its apparent marketing of several additional models of 
Class B digital RF devices and its progress regarding the correction of the user manual for model MG2FX 
to include the requisite consumer disclosure language.11 Marshall responded to these subsequent inquires 
on March 29, 2011 and May 12, 2011, respectively.12 In its May 12, 2011 Response, Marshall explained 
that “shortly after” September 7, 2011, it reprinted the manuals for the MG2FX model with the requisite 
consumer disclosure language included therein.13
III.   DISCUSSION
A.  Marketing of Devices without the Required Consumer Disclosure
4. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer 
for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices which fail to comply 
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”  For a device subject to verification, section 
2.803(a)(2) of the Commission’s implementing regulations provides in pertinent part that:
Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale 
or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the  
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device 
unless … [i]n the case of a device that is not required to have a grant of equipment 
  
7 See Letter from Paul Tait, Marshall Amplification PLC, to Marlene K. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission (July 28, 2010) (“LOI Response”).
8 See id. at 4.  See also 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a) (requiring authorization of Class B digital devices, other than Class B 
computer peripherals, through the verification process).    
9 See LOI Response at 11.  
10 See id. 
11 See Letter from Ricardo M. Durham, Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, to Paul Tait, Marshall Amplification PLC (March 21, 2011); Letter from 
John D. Poutasse, Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Paul Tait, Marshall Amplification PLC (April 18, 2011).  
12 See Letter from Paul Tait, Marshall Amplication PLC, to Nissa Laughner, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (March 29, 2011); Letter from 
Paul Tait, Marshall Amplification PLC, to Nissa Laughner, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May 12, 2011) (“May 12, 2011 Response”).
13 May 12, 2011 Response at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
3
authorization issued by the Commission, but which must comply with specific technical 
standards prior to use, such device also complies with all applicable administrative 
(including verification of the equipment or authorization under a Declaration of 
Conformity, where required), technical, labeling and identification requirements specified 
in this chapter.
5. Under section 15.101 of the Rules,14 certain Class B digital devices, such as digital audio 
music devices marketed to the general public, must be authorized in accordance with the Commission’s 
verification procedures prior to marketing, in order to minimize the threat that their operation would 
result in harmful interference to authorized devices. Specifically, Class B digital devices must be tested 
and verified as compliant with the conducted emission limits and radiated emission limits set forth in 
sections 15.107 and 15.109 of the Rules.15 In addition, such devices must be labeled as specified in 
section 15.19(a)(3) of the Rules.16 Finally, under section 15.105(b) of the Rules,17 the manual for a Class 
B digital device must include a warning to consumers of these unlicensed devices of the potential for 
interference to other radio communications and provide a list of some steps that could possibly eliminate 
the interference.  Specifically, section 15.105(b) of the Rules states that the manual for Class B digital 
devices must include the following consumer disclosure language: 
This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the limits for a Class B digital 
device, pursuant to part 15 of the FCC Rules.  These limits are designed to provide 
reasonable protection against harmful interference in a residential installation.  This 
equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio frequency energy and, if not installed and 
used in accordance with the instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio 
communications.  However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a 
particular installation.  If this equipment does cause harmful interference to radio or 
television reception, which can be determined by turning the equipment off and on, the 
user is encouraged to try to correct the interference by one or more of the following 
measures:
—Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna.
—Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver.
—Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from that to which the                 
receiver is connected.
—Consult the dealer or an experienced radio/TV technician for help. 
6. In its LOI Response, Marshall admitted to marketing the model MG2FX in the United 
States without including the requisite consumer disclosure language in the model’s user manual.18  
Accordingly, we find that Marshall apparently marketed a Class B digital audio RF device without 
  
14 47 C.F.R. § 15.101.   
15 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.107, 15.109. 
16 47 C.F.R. § 15.19(a)(3).    
17 47 C.F.R. § 15.105(b).
18 See LOI Response at 11.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
4
including the requisite consumer disclosure language in the device’s user manual in willful19 and 
repeated20 violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules.
B.  Proposed Forfeiture
7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful 
or repeated violation of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act.21  
Under section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules,22 we may assess an entity that is neither a common carrier, broadcast 
licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing 
violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $112,500 for any single continuing violation.  In 
exercising such authority, we are required to take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent, and 
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”23
8. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement24 and section 1.80 of the 
Rules,25 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars 
($7,000). This base forfeiture, however, is subject to adjustment, either upward or downward.  We note 
that the Commission typically imposes the seven thousand dollar ($7,000) base forfeiture amount for the 
marketing of devices that are not compliant with applicable technical requirements of the Rules or that are 
not authorized by an equipment authorization.26 Because adherence to the Commission’s authorization 
  
19 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of section 312(f)(1) 
of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 
97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the section 503(b) 
context.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 ¶ 5 
(1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”); see also Telrite Corporation, Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 ¶ 12 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 ¶ 9 (2007) (forfeiture paid); San Jose Navigation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 
22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 ¶ 9 (2007), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010) 
(“San Jose”).  
20 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed under section 503(b) of the Act, provides 
that “[t]he term ‘repeated,’ … means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such commission 
or omission is continuous, for more than one day.”  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2).  See Callais Cablevision, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 ¶ 9 (2001), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 22626 (2002) (forfeiture paid); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 ¶ 5.
21 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
22 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).  
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
24 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) 
(“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
25 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
26 See, e.g., Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827 ¶ 21 (2006) 
(proposing a $7,000 base forfeiture for each of the unauthorized models marketed), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1051 (2007) (forfeiture paid); Samson Technologies, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4224-25 ¶ 9 (2004) (proposing a $7,000 base forfeiture for the marketing of 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
5
procedures ensures that devices meet the required technical standards, we have found previously that a 
downward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount from $7,000 to $4,000 is warranted for the marketing 
of devices that have been authorized, but have been marketed without the required consumer 
disclosures.27 In this case, however, we must also consider Marshall’s ability to pay a forfeiture.28 As the 
Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or highly profitable entities, such as 
Marshall,29 should expect forfeitures higher than those reflected in the base amounts.30  
9. Given the totality of the circumstances, including Marshall’s history of overall 
compliance, and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, we propose a forfeiture of seven 
thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200) against Marshall for the marketing of a Class B digital audio RF 
device without the mandatory disclosures to consumers in the device’s user manual in apparent willful 
and repeated violation of section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) and 15.105(b) of the Rules.  
(continued from previous page)    
equipment not compliant with the Commission’s radiated emissions requirements in section 15.109(a) of the Rules), 
consent decree ordered, Order and Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 24509 (2004).
27 See Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 17824, 17827 ¶ 8 (Enf. 
Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008) (forfeiture paid); see also Cellphone-Mate, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 8988, 8990 ¶ 5 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2010), response pending; Wireless 
Extenders, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 8983, 8985 ¶ 5 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. 
Div. 2010); Proxim Wireless Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 1145, 1149 ¶ 12 
(Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) (forfeiture paid); Ryzex Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 
FCC Rcd 878, 884 ¶ 18 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response pending; DBK Concepts, Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 2870, 2875 ¶ 19 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008), response 
pending.
28 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section 
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.  See also, e.g., Uniden America Corporation, Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 13538, 13542 ¶12 (Enf.Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009) (downwardly adjusting 
a proposed base forfeiture of $31,000 to $26,000 based on a history of overall compliance); ABS-CBN International, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 11018,11021 ¶12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
2008) (forfeiture paid) (downwardly adjusting a proposed base forfeiture of $6,500 to $5,200 based on a history of 
overall compliance); Ramsey Electronics, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 458, 463 
¶12 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006) (forfeiture paid) (downwardly adjusting a proposed base forfeiture of 
$24,000 to $21,000 based on a history of overall compliance).
29 Marshall has reported annual gross revenues in excess of $25,000,000.  See ICC Financial Analysis Reports, 
August 10, 2011.  
30 Specifically, the Commission stated:
[O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize that for large or 
highly profitable communication entities, the base forfeiture amounts ... are generally 
low.  In this regard, we are mindful that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an 
effective deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high level....  
For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that, independent from the uniform 
base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to take into account the subsequent violator's ability 
to pay in determining the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued 
against large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an affordable cost of 
doing business.  Such large or highly profitable entities should expect in this regard that 
the forfeiture amount set out in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many 
cases be above, or even well above, the relevant base amount.
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
6
IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES
10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,31 Marshall 
Amplification PLC, is hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the 
amount of seven thousand two hundred dollars ($7,200) for marketing a Class B digital audio radio 
frequency device without including the requisite consumer disclosure language in the device’s user 
manual in apparent willful and repeated violation of section 302(a) of the Act and sections 2.803(a)(2) 
and 15.105(b) of the Rules.
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, 
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Marshall 
Amplification PLC, SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written 
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
12. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by overnight mail 
may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. 
Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159 
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account 
number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A 
(payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be sent to:  Chief 
Financial Officer – Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C.
20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Marshall Amplification 
PLC will also send electronic notification to Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov and Neal.McNeil@fcc.gov on the 
date said payment is made. 
13. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, must 
include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to 
sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules.32 The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, 
ATTN: Enforcement Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. 
referenced in the caption.
14. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim 
of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; 
(2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices (“GAAP”); or (3) 
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial 
status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
financial documentation submitted.
  
31 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
32 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.80(f)(3), 1.16.
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1468
7
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by Registered mail and First Class mail, to Paul Tait, Marshall Amplification PLC, 
Denbigh Rd., Bletchley Milton Keynes MK1 1DQ, United Kingdom.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John D. Poutasse
Acting Chief
Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau