SUMMARY OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI’S
REMARKS ON THE FCC’S ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
On December 3, 2015, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai delivered a speech at the PLI/FCBA 33rd
Annual Institute on Telecommunications Policy & Regulation.  During this address, he outlined the 
problems plaguing the FCC’s enforcement process and offered solutions for getting it back on track.
Summary of Challenges
? Instead of applying the law to the facts, the Commission’s enforcement process is focused on 
issuing headline-grabbing fines regardless of the law.  This has led to a dramatic increase in the 
number of party-line votes on enforcement matters.  In fact, there have been significantly more 
party-line enforcement votes in the past 14 months than in the prior 43 years.
? The FCC’s current enforcement process sets the wrong priorities and is less productive than it 
used to be.  The Commission is issuing fewer Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) and 
forfeiture orders than it had previously.  It is neglecting the enforcement of important rules, such 
as the Commission’s do-not call regulations.
? The Enforcement Bureau is no longer accountable to FCC Commissioners.  Commissioners are 
denied even basic information about what the Bureau is doing, and important enforcement 
decisions are made without the approval of (or even in consultation with) Commissioners.
Summary of Solutions
? The FCC should renew its commitment to a bipartisan and responsible enforcement process.
? Congressional oversight, such as the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s recent inquiry to 
the Government Accountability Office, can help fix what has gone wrong.
? The Commissioners should vote on large consent decrees.  
o If a consent decree involves a monetary payment of more than $100,000 for common 
carriers or $25,000 for any other entity, Commissioners should have to approve it.
o This is the same rule the FCC already has for NALs and forfeiture orders.  
? The FCC should speed up its resolution of enforcement cases by setting a meaningful deadline for 
final action.  Specifically, we should require any forfeiture order to be issued within one year of 
the issuance of an NAL.  If no such forfeiture order is adopted within this timeframe, that NAL 
would be automatically nullified.
? The FCC’s enforcement process should be more transparent.
o If a Commissioner wants information from the Enforcement Bureau, he or she should be 
able to get it.  The Bureau is not an independent agency within an independent agency.
o The enforcement process needs to be more transparent to the public.  For example, on the 
FCC’s website, the Enforcement Bureau should give the public a simple way to 
understand and track the progress of any case involving an NAL.  It should list whether 
the FCC has followed up on that NAL with a forfeiture order, and if so, whether that 
forfeiture has been collected.