OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
February 25, 2016
The Honorable John Lewis
U.S. House of Representatives
343 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Lewis:
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 frilly 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 John Lewis
• 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
Ti-IF CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
February 25, 2016
The Honorable Edward J. Markey
United States Senate
255 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Markey:
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 Edward J. Markey
• 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 Doris Matsui
U.S. House of Representatives
2311 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Matsui:
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 Doris Matsui
• 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 Betty McCollum
U.S. House of Representatives
2256 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman McCollum:
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 2H 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 Betty McCollum
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 Jim McGovern
U.S. House of Representatives
438 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman McGovern:
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 Jim McGovern
• 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 Robert Menendez
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Menendez:
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 Robert Menendez
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 Jeff Merkley
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Merkley:
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 Jeff Merkley
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 Bill Nelson
United States Senate
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Nelson:
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 21 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 Bill Nelson
• 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 Eleanor Holmes Norton
U.S. House of Representatives
2136 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Norton:
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 fuiiy 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 Eleanor Holmes Norton
• 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 Frank Pallone
U.S. House of Representatives
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Pallone:
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 Frank Pallone
• 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 CHAFRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
February 25, 2016
The Honorable Mark Pocan
U.S. House of Representatives
313 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Pocan:
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 fuily 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 Mark Pocan
• 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 mies 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 Charles B. Range!
U.S. House of Representatives
2354 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Rangel:
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 Charles B. Rangel
• 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 Bernard Sanders
United States Senate
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Sanders:
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 Bernard Sanders
• 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 Jan Schakowsky
U.S. House of Representatives
2367 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Schakowsky:
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
	
'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 Jan Schakowsky
• 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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CoMMIssIoN
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
February 25, 2016
The Honorable Jackie Speier
U.S. House of Representatives
2465 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Speier:
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 Jackie Speier
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 Mike Thompson
U.S. House of Representatives
231 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Thompson:
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 Mike Thompson
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 Paul Tonko
U.S. House of Representatives
2463 Raybum House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Tonko:
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 Paul Tonko
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 Chris Van Hollen
U.S. House of Representatives
1707 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Van Hollen:
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 Chris Van Hollen
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 Elizabeth Warren
United States Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warren:
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 frilly 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 Elizabeth Warren
• 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 Ron Wyden
United States Senate
221 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Wyden:
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 Ron Wyden
• 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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
WASHINGTON
February 25, 2016
The Honorable Joim Yarmuth
U.S. House of Representatives
403 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Yarmuth:
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 John Yarmuth
• 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