FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN February 25, 2016 The Honorable Don Beyer U.S. House of Representatives 431 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Beyer: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Don Beyer • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Earl Blumenauer U.S. House of Representatives 1111 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Blumenauer: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Earl Blumenauer • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIHMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Richard Blumenthal United States Senate 706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Blumenthal: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Richard Blumenthal 0 to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici U.S. House of Representatives 439 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Bonamici: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Suzanne Bonamici • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Joe Courtney U.S. House of Representatives 2348 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Courtney: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Joe Courtney o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Danny K. Davis U.S. House of Representatives 2159 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Davis: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Danny K. Davis o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Diana DeGette U.S. House of Representatives 2368 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman DeGette: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Diana DeGette e to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Suzan DelBene U.S. House of Representatives 318 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman DelBene: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Suzan DelBene • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Mike Doyle U.S. House of Representatives 239 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Doyle: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2h1c of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Mike Doyle • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Donna Edwards U.S. House of Representatives 2445 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Edwards: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Donna Edwards • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The drafi NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafling the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo U.S. House of Representatives 241 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Eshoo: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Sam Farr U.S. House of Representatives 1126 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Fan: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2'"' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fuliy agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Sam Farr • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Al Franken United States Senate 309 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Franken: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I filly agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Al Franken o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Alan Grayson U.S. House of Representatives 303 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Grayson: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC' s review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Alan Grayson G to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Ran! M. Grijalva U.S. House of Representatives 1511 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Grijalva: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their beha1f, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Raiil M. Grijalva o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Michael M. Honda U.S. House of Representatives 1713 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Honda: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Michael M. Honda o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Hank Johnson U.S. House of Representatives 2240 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Johnson: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Hank Johnson • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Amy Klobuchar United States Senate 302 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Klobuchar: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA' s prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2'' of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Amy Klobuchar • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy United States Senate 437 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Leahy: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy o to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler OFFICE OF THE CHAIHMAN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON February 25, 2016 The Honorable Barbara Lee U.S. House of Representatives 2267 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congresswoman Lee: Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Section 301 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which amends the codified Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Your important views will be included in the record of the related proceeding and considered as part of the FCC's review. Section 301 creates an exception to the TCPA's prior express consent requirement for automated calls to cellular or residential telephones, if such calls are for the purpose of collecting debts owed to or guaranteed by the United States government. That provision also requires the Commission to issue implementing regulations within nine months of enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act, giving the Commission until August 2nd of this year to complete and adopt new rules. You have raised several issues for consideration by the Commission: whether calls can be made pursuant to Section 301 prior to issuance of our implementing rules; whether covered calls should be allowed only to the debtor and not others; what limits should be placed on covered calls to telephone numbers reassigned from a debtor to another person; whether there should be limits on the number and duration of automated calls made without consent, an issue raised specifically by Section 301; and whether callers should be required to stop calling as soon as any called party makes such a request. I fully agree that these are key issues for the Commission to consider in this context. Last week I circulated a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comment on these and other issues and presents proposals that remain faithful to Congress's mandate while shielding consumers from unwanted robocalls. The draft NPRM includes clear, pro-consumer restrictions on the type and number of calls a federal creditor may place to recover a delinquent debt, even when those calls go unanswered. In particular, the NPRM proposes: • that only calls made after a debtor has become delinquent are covered by the exception; • to limit the calls to creditors and those calling on their behalf, including debt servicers; • that these robocalls can only be made to the debtor, so as to prevent unwanted robocalls to relatives, friends, and other acquaintances of debtors; • to limit the number of calls to three per month per delinquency; and Page 2-The Honorable Barbara Lee • to empower consumers with the right to stop calls from a federal creditor at any time and to require callers to inform debtors of this right. The draft NPRM also makes clear that the new rules will not open a door for telemarking calls. The Commission remains steadfast in its defense of protections against unwanted calls. Congress specified that exempted calls must be "solely" to collect a federal debt, and we will ensure they do not go beyond that boundary. I also note that you urge us to work closely with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to coordinate the two agencies' approaches to limits on the number of permissible debt collection calls. Commission staff worked closely with the CFPB staff in drafting the NPRM and developing the aforementioned proposals and has also consulted closely with the Department of Treasury, Department of Education and other federal stakeholders. I appreciate your interest in this matter. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Tom Wheeler