FCC drops the ball again

On August 20, 2011, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability ("NAL") to Marshall Amplification PLC in connection with Marshall's amplifier model MG2FX.  Marshall  The MG2FX apparently is a digital musical amplifier, and therefore is subject to the provisions of Part 15 of the FCC's rules.  Part 15 deals with interference, and specifies certain requirements for products subject to Part 15 and also requires certain disclosures on the products.

Apparently, Marshall's product did meet the technical specifications in Part 15, but did not meet the disclosure requirements.  The manual did not inform buyers of the product that the amplifiers must not cause harmful interference and must accept any interference from other electronic equipment.  This apparently was inadvertent on Marshall's part since other products did have the required disclosure.

The FCC proceeded by way of a Letter of Inquiry.  The FCC does have the power to investigate suspected violations of the rules and often begins with a Letter of Inquiry.  The problem for the FCC is that there is no requirement under the rules or statutes mandating that any person or entity respond to a Letter of Inquiry.  Marshall's did respond, apparently admitting its mistake.

The FCC then issued this NAL.  As disclosed in the NAL, the typical fine for a first time failure to comply with the FCC's rules respecting Part 15 is $7,000.  Where the conduct is a failure to disclose rather than a failure to meet technical specifications, the fine is generally reduced to $4,000.  Further, if there is a showing of inability to pay, the FCC can reduce the fine further or even cancel the fine.  Here, however, the FCC turned the inability to pay exception upside down and increased the fine from the usual $4,000 to $7,200 because it decided Marshall's had the ability to pay more!!!

Luckily for Marshall, the FCC screwed up royally again.  Perhaps it is because the fine was issued by the Spectrum bureau and not the Enforcement bureau.  In any event, as we have repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in prior posts, the FCC cannot issue a NAL without first issuing a formal Citation.  A Letter of Inquiry is not a Citation and does not usually contain the statutorily mandated disclosures of a Citation.  Marshall does not have to pay the fine, in our opinion.

Isn't it ironic that the FCC fines Marshall's for not meeting the disclosure requirements of the FCC's rules, when the FCC fails to meet the disclosure requirements governing the FCC's authority?