Motivating FCC Compliance
With Consequences
By Ken and Kelly Orchard
We were wrong. Several articles ago, readers will recall, we speculated that perhaps education was the best way to reach managers and staff of radio stations on matters of FCC Compliance as defined in their current job descriptions.
We have discovered that that is not necessarily the case. On occasion we have had an opportunity to present FCC Educational seminars for some of our clients where we provide information on what the FCC expects and how to maintain FCC Compliance. We felt this was a good way to educate staff, but have found that education isn’t always the answer.
It seems that most of our requests to hold a seminar for a group of stations is comparable to the "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped" way of thinking. Most of these groups invite us in only after they have been inspected and cited for violations by the FCC, to as high as $71,000. Suddenly, these stations are motivated to clean up their FCC Compliance act.
We have learned through a series of observation and study that as with many situations, people are more motivated by a consequence, than by any other reason. Case in point - we read about a study, where the California Highway Patrol performed an experiment to encourage drivers to buckle up in order to lower the odds of injury accidents and save lives. This campaign failed according to the results of the study. Even though drivers were offered cash incentives (rewards) for buckling up, they were still found to be apathetic about their personal safety or the law. However, when the CHP increased the number of citations for drivers that were not belted, drivers complied so that they would not receive a ticket (punishment), and there was a sharp rise in seat belt usage.
This brings us to the observation that impending or potential violations or fines (punishment) from the FCC is the actual primary motivational factor for getting stations to perform the duties required to meet your stations FCC Compliance requirements.
As part of our service to our clients and readers, we track the activities of the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau Field Offices. June 2002, which is the most recent month, reported in regard to the Enforcement Bureau actions, they issued the largest amount of violations and forfeitures in years.
The following is an excerpt from the FCC’s Enforcement Bureaus "Public Notice" area that anyone can view from the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov. This was released on July 18, 2002:
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU FIELD OPERATIONS
LIST OF NOTICES OF APPARENT LIABILITY ISSUED
Enforcement Bureau Field Offices Propose 43 Forfeitures in Amounts Totaling $502,200
In June 2002
The following is a list of Notices of Apparent Liability issued by the Enforcement Bureau’s Field Offices during the period June 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002. During this period, the Field Offices issued 43 Notices of Apparent Liability ("NALs") in amounts totaling $ 502,200 for violations of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., and/or the FCC’s Rules. Of the 43 NALs issued, 32 involved violations of the Commission’s safety-related rules (e.g., antenna structure, cable signal leakage, AM station fencing requirements and Emergency Alert System). The Bureau cautions licensees and antenna structure owners that the Commission takes compliance with these rules seriously. Failure to comply with these rules may result in significant enforcement actions.
This list is provided for information purposes only and does not provide parties with additional rights. Parties wishing to make a payment or file a response to a NAL must do so in accordance with the instructions and by the deadline set forth in the NAL.
Not only is the FCC issuing NALs and forfeitures for the Public Files, towers, EAS, and other engineering issues, but they are coming down very heavily on complaints about Indecency as we have been closely following the aftermath of complaints made by the infamous duo in New York. An LA Times article quoted a source that commented, "I think that the larger owners…see such fines as merely a cost of doing business. As long as the threat is minor, and not the license itself, this will continue."
Discussion in the industry is that issuing only minor fines for violations -such as in the New York indecency case – would be sending a bad signal to the industry. If the FCC or even Congress were to perceive a downturn in compliance – such as the about June public notice list and the boys in New York, the likely response would be to return to more or greater regulation, including the risk of losing the license.
So back to our concept that "punishment" in the form of fines and loss of license may just be the motivating factor for radio groups to clean up the industry and maintain the rules set forth by the FCC in order to hold a license to broadcast. This seems to be the idea all over the industry, which seems to explain our recent amount of interest and questions in the Alternative Broadcast Inspection Programs offered by the state associations in cooperation with the FCC. This is the most opportune time to focus on the areas of FCC Compliance for all your stations, before somebody else does (like the FCC, or your competitor, or an angry mob of listeners, or an angry community interest group).
Avoid FCC fines. Orchard Media Services can help you with your FCC Compliance obligations. Call for rates on all services. OMS will come to your station. Soon we will be in Oregon and Washington, this summer we’ll be in the mid-West. We can perform a "mock" FCC Inspection; evaluate your Public Inspection Files, Political Files, Station Logs, EAS Compliance and other FCC rules and requirements. We will be working on inspecting stations in California for the next several months. Call Orchard Media Services for questions and information, at 760-243-4733 or via email @ PIFILE@aol.com.