Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-72
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Broadnet 
Teleservices LLC Petition for Declaratory Ruling; National Employment Network Association 
Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling; RTI International Petition for Expedited Declaratory 
Ruling, CG Docket No. 02-278
I support the relief provided in this Declaratory Ruling, which exempts most calls made by or on 
behalf of the federal government, including tele-town halls, from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 
(TCPA). It is frustrating, however, that Federal agencies will be exempt but the Commission leadership 
left unanswered whether state or local agencies may be subject to TCPA lawsuits. Why is the 
Commission willing to say the Export-Import Bank is exempt but not the California Health & Human 
Services Agency, the Carson City Public Guardian, or the New York Department of Education? Such 
arbitrary line drawing leaves state and local governments, and the people they serve, exposed to predatory 
TCPA lawsuits that divert tax dollars away from serving the public.
The same justifications used in the Declaratory Ruling to exempt federal government calls would 
apply to state and local government calls.  For instance, the item notes that “allowing the federal 
government to use autodialers without consent will foster public safety and save resources by allowing 
government to use the most cost-efficient method of communicating with the public.”  State and local 
governments may also be budget constrained and have equally valid and urgent reasons to contact their 
citizens.  It is interesting that the same Commission that is willing to abuse the statute to “help” 
municipalities, against my wishes, would not even answer the question of whether they can make calls 
without the threat of costly litigation hanging over them.      
In addition, the Declaratory Ruling notes that “the government would face a significant obstacle 
if it could not make autodialed or prerecorded- or artificial-voice calls to communicate with participants 
in federal programs such as Social Security.”  The item even goes so far as to state that it can “discern no 
legal or policy rationale that would justify making it more difficult for the federal government to inform 
citizens of ways to leave poverty behind or to otherwise contact citizens for similar benevolent purposes.”  
I am surprised that a Commission majority that just voted to expand outreach to low-income households 
to encourage every possible recipient to sign up for Lifeline, including by directing USAC to work with 
state agencies on outreach, would be reluctant to provide relief for state agencies that want to conduct that 
outreach through phone calls or texts.  
When I pushed Commission leadership to resolve the state and local issue, I was told that more 
research would be needed because it could open the door to unwanted calls from a whole host of 
agencies—even the dog catcher!  I did not find that excuse to be persuasive when contemplating the 
multitude of beneficial state and local agencies helping our fellow citizens on a daily basis or even in the 
narrow universe of animal control services.  First, if I had a missing dog that was found, I would want to 
receive that call—even if by autodialer.  I would also want to know if there was an outbreak of rabies, and 
in other scenarios when autodialing or sending texts to residents of a potentially impacted area makes 
sense, which just so happens is justified under the law.  Second, I find it hard to believe that state or local 
agencies would waste time setting up systems to autodial random residents.  If it does happen, fire those 
employees rather than using TCPA as an arbiter of state and local government actions.  Third, even if I 
receive a stray call now and then, that should not constitute a harm to be remedied through TCPA 
litigation.   
The Declaratory Ruling does not even commit to a timeframe for addressing state and local 
government calls.  The Commission should at least provide an answer so that all impacted parties can 
plan or act accordingly, or seek appropriate remedy.  Instead, leaving the issue in regulatory limbo for the 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-72
2
foreseeable future will potentially expose state and local governments to liability while doing nothing to 
assist consumers.  In fact, some states or localities may simply be forced to discontinue calls, to the 
detriment of consumers that would have benefitted from such outreach.  That is a terrible outcome.