*Pages 1--2 from C:\Pdf2Text\Ready4Text_in\pdf\51631.pdf* August 31, 2005 Office of the Se4retary ATT: OCBO Federal Comm~ cations Commission 445 12th Street, $. W, Washington, Dq 20554 RE: Request for comment regarding possible revision or elimination of rules under the Regulatory rlexibility Act DA- O5- 1524 My name is Mel ie Grimsley., and I ant the President/ Owner of South Carolina Collection Agen y, LLC located in Florence, South Carolina. I ant the owner of a small business that been substantially harmed as a result of the Federal CommUnications Commission's r gulatory decision Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (" TCP A") that s all businesses, such as mine, cannot use predictive dialers to call wireless number when attempting to recover delinquent payments for goods or services received by cons ers. I am aware that CA International (" ACA ") has filed a written comment with the Commission reg ding this issue in response to the Commission's request for comments on the possible r vision or elimination of rules under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. § 610 (" A"), in proceeding DA- 05- 1524. See FCC Seeks Comment Regarding Possible Revisio or Elimination of Rules Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, DA- 05- 1524 (May 31, 2 05). I fully support ACA' s comment and the relief the Association seeks, including CA' s characterization of the harm visited upon small businesses as a result of the Co ission's rule. To the extent th my company uses predictive dialers, we do so to complete transactions for which cons ers have obtained a benefit without payment. We do not telemarket. The Commissio should not permit its regulations to be used as a shield to encourage the non- payment of ebts. Doing so harms small businesses, the economy, as well as consumers. As it stands toda , my company faces serious fInancial hardship due to the Commission's regulatory rever al that creditors and debt collectors cannot use predictive dialers to call a wireless number to attempt to recover outstanding payment obligations. I am sure that you are aware tthe Commissiqn authorized the consumer to change their landline number to their ireless phone. We have no means to identify a number prior to calling the consumer. e gain our consumer number from our clients, when assigned new business. Thus, e Commission's rule requires a business to violate the TCP A when 1 conducting no al business calls. Your, ruling allow a conswner to hide behind this ruling to preven paying their obligation. On top of this it causes a small company, to expend monies t comply, at a great cost, and fundamentally alter our business models to reduce or remov our reliance on predictive dialers. It also needlessly subjects us to federal enforce ent and private litigation risk, even though Congress never intended such an outcome. For these reason$. I encourage the Commission to promptly clarify that autodialer calls to wireless number~ to attempt to recover payment obligations are not covered by the TCP A regulations for t~ e reasons expressed by ACA. ,- fl~ ~~ Mellie Grimsley President South Carolina q: ollection Agency, LLC 2