source:
  type: regulation
  id: reg-f-1006-supplement-i
  authority: "Supplement I to Part 1006 — Official Interpretations of Regulation F (FDCPA debt-collection rule)"
  description: 'Supplement I to Part 1006 contains the CFPB''s official interpretations

    (commentary) of Regulation F. Each comment is operationally

    load-bearing for compliance: it converts the rule text into examples,

    presumptions, definitions, and safe-harbor guidance that examiners and

    courts treat as authoritative.

    '
obligations:
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-6b1-c1-designation-of-inconvenience
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-6b1-c1-designation-of-inconvenience
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 6(b)(1)-1 (Designation of inconvenience)"
  description: 'Per CFPB official interpretation, [LENDER] (acting as debt collector)

    knows or should know that a time or place is inconvenient if the

    consumer uses the word "inconvenient" to notify [LENDER]; depending

    on facts and circumstances [LENDER] may also know or should know

    that a time or place is inconvenient even if the consumer does not

    specifically use the word "inconvenient." [LENDER] may ask follow-up

    questions to clarify a consumer''s statements about convenience.

    '
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its agents are trained to recognize statements that constitute a consumer's designation of an inconvenient time or place (including statements that do not use the word "inconvenient"), and to ask clarifying follow-up questions, in line with Supplement I comment 6(b)(1)-1?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - communication-restrictions
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.6-b1-inconvenient-times-places
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 6(b)(1)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Designation of inconvenience. Section 1006.6(b)(1) prohibits a debt collector from, among other things, communicating or attempting to communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt at a time or place that the debt collector knows or should know is inconvenient to the consumer, unless an exception in § 1006.6(b)(4) applies. For example, a debt collector knows or should know that a time or place is inconvenient to a consumer if the consumer uses the word “inconvenient” to notify the debt collector."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064 (content.txt) at

      2026-05-22T18:55Z. Quoted span is the headline through the first

      illustrative sentence; the full comment continues with additional

      examples in the source. Interprets parent rule

      reg-f-1006.6-b1-inconvenient-times-places.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Am I facilitating agent training and call handling such that it is hard to miss a consumer's designation of an inconvenient time or place — including statements that do not use the word 'inconvenient' — with agents prompted to ask clarifying follow-up questions, per Comment 6(b)(1)-1?
  file_review: Review call recordings / notes for consumer statements signaling inconvenience and the agent's handling; the compliance person judges whether [LENDER] knew or should have known a time/place was inconvenient and whether clarification was sought.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-6b1i-c1-time-of-electronic-communication
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-6b1i-c1-time-of-electronic-communication
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 6(b)(1)(i)-1 (Time of electronic communication)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, for purposes of the §1006.6(b)(1)(i)\nunusual-or-inconvenient-time restriction, an electronic communication\n(such as email or text message) sent by [LENDER] occurs WHEN [LENDER]\nSENDS IT, not when the consumer receives or views it. The 8:00 a.m.\n/ 9:00 p.m. window therefore is measured against [LENDER]'s send\ntimestamp at the consumer's local time.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every electronic debt-collection communication, can [LENDER] demonstrate that the SEND timestamp (not the consumer's receive/view time) fell within 8:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. local time at the consumer's location (absent prior consent or knowledge of contrary circumstances)?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - electronic-communication
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.6-b1-inconvenient-times-places
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 6(b)(1)(i)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Time of electronic communication. Section 1006.6(b)(1)(i) prohibits a debt collector from communicating or attempting to communicate, including through electronic communication media, at any unusual time, or at a time that the debt collector knows or should know is inconvenient to the consumer. For purposes of determining the time of an electronic communication, such as an email or text message, under § 1006.6(b)(1)(i) , an electronic communication occurs when the debt collector sends it, not, for example, when the consumer receives or views it."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. Interprets parent

      rule reg-f-1006.6-b1-inconvenient-times-places (specifically the

      8:00 a.m. / 9:00 p.m. presumption applied to electronic media).

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the send-time rule — measuring the 8:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. window against [LENDER]'s SEND timestamp at the consumer's local time (not receipt/view time) for emails and texts?
  file_review: Spot-check electronic-communication send logs against consumer-local time. Objective timestamp/window check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14a-c1-general-prohibition
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14a-c1-general-prohibition
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(a)-1 (General prohibition reach beyond enumerated examples)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, §1006.14(a) sets a general standard\nthat reaches not just the specifically enumerated conduct in\n§1006.14(b)–(h) but ANY conduct by [LENDER] (acting as a debt\ncollector) the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress,\nor abuse any person in connection with collection of a debt — across\nany communication medium (in-person, telephone, audio recordings,\npaper, mail, email, text, social media, other electronic), even if\nnot specifically addressed by §1006.14(b)–(h).\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its harassment-prevention controls cover ALL communication media (in-person, telephone, paper, mail, email, text, social media, other electronic) and not only the specific conduct enumerated in §1006.14(b)–(h)?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - harassment-prohibition
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-a-general-prohibition
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(a)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. General prohibition. Section 1006.14(a) , which implements FDCPA section 806 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ), sets forth a general standard that prohibits a debt collector from engaging in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. The general prohibition covers the specific conduct described in § 1006.14(b) through (h), as well as any conduct by the debt collector that is not specifically prohibited by § 1006.14(b) through (h) but the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. Quoted span is the

      headline and first two operative sentences; the comment continues

      with media list and an example in the source.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Am I facilitating harassment-prevention controls that cover ALL communication media (in-person, telephone, paper, mail, email, text, social media, other electronic) and not only the §1006.14(b)–(h) enumerated conduct, so harassing conduct in any medium is hard to miss?
  file_review: 'Backstop sample across media: review communications in each channel for conduct whose natural consequence is harassment. The compliance person judges whether unenumerated conduct met the standard.'
  judgment: true
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14a-c2-cumulative-effect
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14a-c2-cumulative-effect
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(a)-2 (Cumulative effect of conduct across media)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, whether [LENDER]'s conduct violates\nthe §1006.14(a) general standard MAY DEPEND on the cumulative effect\nof conduct across multiple communication media. Conduct that on its\nown would violate neither §1006.14(a) nor any specific prohibition\nin §1006.14(b)–(h) may nonetheless violate §1006.14(a) when evaluated\ncumulatively (e.g., presumption-of-compliance phone calls PLUS\nadditional unsolicited emails about the same debt).\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its harassment-prevention controls aggregate contact activity ACROSS communication media (phone + email + text + social media + paper) for each consumer, not just per-channel, so cumulative-effect harassment patterns are detected?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - harassment-prohibition
  - cumulative-effect
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-a-general-prohibition
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(a)-2
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "2. Cumulative effect of conduct. Whether a debt collector's conduct violates the general standard in § 1006.14(a) may depend on the cumulative effect of the debt collector's conduct through any communication medium the debt collector uses, including in-person interactions, telephone calls, audio recordings, paper documents, mail, email, text messages, social media, or other electronic media. Depending on the facts and circumstances, conduct that on its own would violate neither the general prohibition in § 1006.14(a) , nor any specific prohibition in § 1006.14(b) through (h), nonetheless may violate § 1006.14(a) when such conduct is evaluated cumulatively with other conduct."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. Quoted span ends

      before the illustrative example that follows in the source.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program facilitate aggregating contact activity ACROSS media (phone + email + text + social + paper) per consumer — not just per-channel — so cumulative-effect harassment patterns are detectable, per Comment 14(a)-2?
  file_review: Start with the per-consumer cross-channel contact picture; the compliance person judges whether the cumulative effect of otherwise-compliant contacts amounted to harassment.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b1-c1-frequency-compliance-not-end-of-analysis
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b1-c1-frequency-compliance-not-end-of-analysis
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(b)(1)-1 (Effect of compliance with §1006.14(b)(1) is limited to frequency)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, [LENDER]'s compliance with\n§1006.14(b)(1) (the 7-in-7 / 7-day-after-conversation telephone\npresumption) only establishes compliance with §1006.14(a) AND FDCPA\nsection 806 with respect to the FREQUENCY of telephone calls.\n[LENDER] can still violate §1006.14(a) and FDCPA section 806 if the\nnatural consequence of another aspect of the calls (unrelated to\nfrequency) is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its harassment-prevention controls examine the CONTENT and CONDUCT of debt-collection calls (not only their frequency), so that calls satisfying the 7-in-7 frequency presumption can still be flagged when their content creates a natural harassment consequence?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - harassment-prohibition
  - call-frequency
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-b1-repeated-calls
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(b)(1)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Effect of compliance. A debt collector who complies with § 1006.14(b)(1) and FDCPA section 806(5) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d(5) ) complies with § 1006.14(a) and FDCPA section 806 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ) solely with respect to the frequency of its telephone calls. The debt collector nevertheless could violate § 1006.14(a) and FDCPA section 806 if the natural consequence of another aspect of the debt collector's telephone calls, unrelated to frequency, is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Am I facilitating controls that examine the CONTENT and CONDUCT of calls (not only their frequency), so a call satisfying the 7-in-7 presumption can still be flagged when its content's natural consequence is harassment, per Comment 14(b)(1)-1?
  file_review: Review call recordings of frequency-compliant calls for harassing content; the compliance person judges whether a non-frequency aspect of the call was harassing, oppressive, or abusive.
  judgment: true
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b2i-c1-presumption-of-compliance
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b2i-c1-presumption-of-compliance
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-1 (Presumption of compliance — both prongs must hold)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, for [LENDER] to claim the\n§1006.14(b)(2)(i) presumption of compliance with §1006.14(b)(1) and\nFDCPA section 806(5), [LENDER]'s telephone call frequencies MUST NOT\nEXCEED EITHER PRONG: neither more than seven calls within seven\nconsecutive days (prong A), nor a call within seven consecutive days\nafter having had a telephone conversation with the person about the\nsame particular debt (prong B). Frequencies are subject to the\n§1006.14(b)(3) exclusions, and the date of a telephone conversation\nis day one of the seven-consecutive-day period for prong B.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its dialer-frequency logic enforces BOTH prongs of §1006.14(b)(2)(i) (the 7-in-7 cap AND the 7-day-after-conversation cooling period), with the conversation date as day one of the seven-day window?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - call-frequency
  - seven-in-seven
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-b2i-presumption-of-compliance
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Presumption of compliance; examples. Section 1006.14(b)(2)(i) provides that a debt collector is presumed to comply with § 1006.14(b)(1) and FDCPA section 806(5) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d(5) ) if the debt collector places a telephone call to a particular person in connection with the collection of a particular debt neither: More than seven times within seven consecutive days (§ 1006.14(b)(2)(i)(A)); nor within a period of seven consecutive days after having had a telephone conversation with the person in connection with the collection of such debt (§ 1006.14(b)(2)(i)(B)). For the presumption of compliance to apply, the debt collector's telephone call frequencies must not exceed either prong of § 1006.14(b)(2)(i). The telephone call frequencies are subject to the exclusions in § 1006.14(b)(3). In addition, for purposes of § 1006.14(b)(2)(i)(B), the date of the telephone conversation is the first day of the seven-consecutive-day period."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for both prongs of the presumption — dialer logic enforcing the 7-in-7 cap AND the 7-day-after-conversation cooling period (conversation date = day one), subject to the (b)(3) exclusions?
  file_review: Spot-check per-person-per-debt dialer logs that both prongs held and the conversation date anchored the cooling window. Objective count/threshold check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b2i-c3-misdirected-calls
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14b2i-c3-misdirected-calls
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-3 (Misdirected telephone calls do not count toward frequencies)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, if [LENDER] places telephone calls\nto a particular number within a seven-consecutive-day period and\nthen learns that the number is not the intended person's number,\nthose calls are NOT considered to have been telephone calls placed\nto that person during that seven-day period for purposes of the\n§1006.14(b)(2)(i) presumption.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its dialer-frequency accounting removes from the per-person 7-in-7 window any telephone calls placed to a particular number once [LENDER] learns the number does not belong to the intended consumer (with timestamped wrong-number-event logging)?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - call-frequency
  - wrong-number
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-b2i-presumption-of-compliance
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(b)(2)(i)-3
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "3. Misdirected telephone calls. Section 1006.14(b)(2)(i) provides that a debt collector is presumed to comply with § 1006.14(b)(1) and FDCPA section 806(5) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d(5) ) if the debt collector's telephone call frequencies do not exceed the telephone call frequencies described in § 1006.14(b)(2)(i). If, within a period of seven consecutive days, a debt collector attempts to communicate with a particular person by placing telephone calls to a particular telephone number, and the debt collector then learns that the telephone number is not that person's number, the telephone calls that the debt collector made to that number are not considered to have been telephone calls placed to that person during that seven-consecutive-day period for purposes of § 1006.14(b)(2)(i)."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the misdirected-call rule — removing from the per-person 7-in-7 window any calls placed to a number once [LENDER] learns it is not the intended person's, with timestamped wrong-number logging?
  file_review: Spot-check wrong-number events and confirm the associated calls were removed from the frequency window. Objective accounting check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14h1-c1-communication-media-designations
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-14h1-c1-communication-media-designations
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 14(h)(1)-1 (Communication media designations and follow-up questions)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, §1006.14(h)(1) prohibits [LENDER]\n(as debt collector) from communicating or attempting to communicate\nwith a person through a medium of communication if the person has\nrequested that [LENDER] not use that medium. [LENDER] may ask\nfollow-up questions regarding preferred communication media to\nclarify statements by the person.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate that its per-person communication-preference record (i) is updated whenever a person requests that a medium not be used, (ii) suppresses subsequent contacts via that medium, and (iii) captures clarifying follow-up questions and answers, in line with Supplement I comment 14(h)(1)-1?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - medium-restrictions
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.14-h1-prohibited-media
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 14(h)(1)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: 1. Communication media designations. Section 1006.14(h)(1) prohibits a debt collector from communicating or attempting to communicate with a person in connection with the collection of any debt through a medium of communication if the person has requested that the debt collector not use that medium to communicate with the person. The debt collector may ask follow-up questions regarding preferred communication media to clarify statements by the person.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program facilitate a per-person communication-preference record that (i) updates whenever a medium is requested not to be used, (ii) suppresses subsequent contact via that medium, and (iii) captures clarifying follow-up Q&A, per Comment 14(h)(1)-1?
  file_review: 'Start with the preference log / notes: confirm the request was captured and the medium suppressed thereafter. Spot-check post-request contacts. Objective presence/suppression check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-18e1-c1-initial-disclosure-medium-agnostic
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-18e1-c1-initial-disclosure-medium-agnostic
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 18(e)(1)-1 (Initial disclosure required in initial communication regardless of medium or initiator)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, [LENDER] (as debt collector) must\nmake the §1006.18(e)(1) disclosure (that [LENDER] is attempting to\ncollect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for\nthat purpose) in [LENDER]'s INITIAL communication with a consumer,\nREGARDLESS of the medium of communication and REGARDLESS of whether\n[LENDER] or the consumer initiated the communication. A\nconsumer-initiated call following [LENDER]'s prior limited-content\nmessage is itself the \"initial communication\" requiring the\ndisclosure.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "Can [LENDER] demonstrate, through script and channel-by-channel review, that the §1006.18(e)(1) \"attempting to collect a debt / information will be used\" disclosure is made in every initial communication regardless of medium (telephone, email, text, in-person) and regardless of which party initiated the communication?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - mini-miranda
  - required-disclosure
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.18-e1-initial-disclosure
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 18(e)(1)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Example. A debt collector must make the disclosure required by § 1006.18(e)(1) in the debt collector's initial communication with a consumer, regardless of the medium of communication and regardless of whether the debt collector or the consumer initiated the communication."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. Quoted span is the

      headline and first operative sentence; the comment continues with

      a limited-content-message example.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program ensure the §1006.18(e)(1) disclosure is made in every initial communication regardless of medium (telephone, email, text, in-person) and regardless of which party initiated it — including a consumer-initiated call following a prior limited-content message, per Comment 18(e)(1)-1?
  file_review: Review scripts channel-by-channel and a sample of initial communications (including consumer-initiated) for the disclosure. Objective presence check.
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-30a1-c2-reasonable-period-14-days
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-30a1-c2-reasonable-period-14-days
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 30(a)(1)-2 (Reasonable period of time = 14 consecutive days)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, for purposes of §1006.30(a)(1)(ii),\nthe \"reasonable period of time\" to wait for an undeliverability\nnotice before furnishing information about a debt to a consumer\nreporting agency BEGINS on the date [LENDER] places the letter in\nthe mail or sends the electronic message, and a period of\n14 CONSECUTIVE DAYS after that date IS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every debt furnished to a CRA where the §1006.30(a)(1)(ii) mail/electronic path was used, can [LENDER] demonstrate at least a 14-consecutive-day wait between the mail/send date and the CRA furnishing date, with no undeliverability notice received during that period?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - credit-furnishing
  - 14-day-wait
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.30-a1-pre-furnish-contact-required
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 30(a)(1)-2
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: 2. Reasonable period of time. Section 1006.30(a)(1)(ii) provides, in relevant part, that a debt collector who places a letter about a debt in the mail, or who sends an electronic message about a debt to the consumer, must wait a reasonable period of time to receive a notice of undeliverability before furnishing information about the debt to a consumer reporting agency. The reasonable period of time begins on the date that the debt collector places the letter in the mail or sends the electronic message. A period of 14 consecutive days after the date that the debt collector places a letter in the mail or sends an electronic message is a reasonable period of time.
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. This is the

      load-bearing 14-day operational number; it appears only in

      commentary, not in the regulatory text itself.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the 14-consecutive-day safe-harbor wait — measuring the reasonable period from the mail/send date before furnishing to a CRA via the §1006.30(a)(1)(ii) path?
  file_review: 'Spot-check furnished debts on the mail/send path: confirm at least a 14-consecutive-day gap between mail/send and furnishing with no undeliverability notice received. Objective timing check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-30a1-c3-notices-of-undeliverability
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-30a1-c3-notices-of-undeliverability
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 30(a)(1)-3 (Receipt of undeliverability notice within reasonable period blocks furnishing)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, if [LENDER] receives a notice of\nundeliverability during the §1006.30(a)(1)(ii) reasonable period,\n[LENDER] must NOT furnish information about the debt to a consumer\nreporting agency until [LENDER] otherwise satisfies §1006.30(a)(1)\n(e.g., by speaking with the consumer or re-mailing/re-sending and\nwaiting a fresh reasonable period without an undeliverability\nnotice). If [LENDER] does not receive an undeliverability notice\nduring the reasonable period and then furnishes, [LENDER] does not\nviolate §1006.30(a)(1) even if [LENDER] subsequently receives an\nundeliverability notice.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "Can [LENDER] demonstrate, for every debt furnished to a CRA via the §1006.30(a)(1)(ii) mail/electronic path, that no undeliverability notice was received during the reasonable-period wait, OR that [LENDER] re-satisfied §1006.30(a)(1) before furnishing?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - credit-furnishing
  - undeliverability
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.30-a1-pre-furnish-contact-required
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 30(a)(1)-3
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "3. Notices of undeliverability. Section 1006.30(a)(1)(ii) provides, in relevant part, that, if a debt collector who places a letter about a debt in the mail, or who sends an electronic message about a debt to the consumer, receives a notice of undeliverability during the reasonable period of time, the debt collector must not furnish information about the debt to a consumer reporting agency until the debt collector otherwise satisfies § 1006.30(a)(1) . A debt collector who does not receive a notice of undeliverability during the reasonable period and who thereafter furnishes information about the debt to a consumer reporting agency does not violate § 1006.30(a)(1) even if the debt collector subsequently receives a notice of undeliverability."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the undeliverability-block rule — barring furnishing if an undeliverability notice arrives during the reasonable period until §1006.30(a)(1) is otherwise re-satisfied, while preserving the safe harbor when no notice arrives during the period?
  file_review: 'Spot-check the mail/send-path furnishing files: confirm no undeliverability notice was received during the wait, or that §1006.30(a)(1) was re-satisfied before furnishing. Objective check against the undeliverability log.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34b3-c1-itemization-date-consistency
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34b3-c1-itemization-date-consistency
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 34(b)(3)-1 (Itemization date must be used consistently for a given consumer/debt)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, [LENDER] may select any one of the\nfive §1006.34(b)(3) reference dates (last statement, charge-off,\nlast payment, transaction, judgment) as the itemization date, but\nONCE [LENDER] uses a reference date for a debt in a communication\nwith a consumer, [LENDER] MUST USE THAT REFERENCE DATE CONSISTENTLY\nwhen providing §1006.34(c) information to that consumer. Mixing\nitemization-date references across §1006.34(c)(2) fields for the\nsame debt is non-compliant (e.g., last-statement-date for account\nnumber but charge-off-date for amount).\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every validation notice issued, can [LENDER] demonstrate that a SINGLE consistent §1006.34(b)(3) reference date was used across ALL §1006.34(c)(2) information fields for that consumer's debt (and across subsequent communications about the same debt)?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - validation-notice
  - itemization-date
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.34-c2-debt-information-required
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 34(b)(3)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. In general. Section 1006.34(b)(3) defines itemization date for purposes of § 1006.34 . Section 1006.34(b)(3) states that the itemization date is any one of five reference dates for which a debt collector can ascertain the amount of the debt. The reference dates are the last statement date, the charge-off date, the last payment date, the transaction date, and the judgment date. A debt collector may select any of these dates as the itemization date to comply with § 1006.34 . Once a debt collector uses a reference date for a debt in a communication with a consumer, the debt collector must use that reference date for that debt consistently when providing the information required by § 1006.34(c) to that consumer."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for itemization-date consistency — once a §1006.34(b)(3) reference date is used for a debt, the same date is used across all §1006.34(c)(2) fields and subsequent communications about that debt?
  file_review: 'Spot-check validation notices: confirm a single reference date drove all (c)(2) fields and later communications for the same debt. Objective consistency check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34b5-c1-assumed-receipt-validation-info
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34b5-c1-assumed-receipt-validation-info
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 34(b)(5)-1 (Assumed receipt date may be used to calculate validation-period end date)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, where [LENDER] provides validation\ninformation in writing or electronically, [LENDER] may calculate the\nend date of the §1006.34(b)(5) validation period (the 30-day period\nstarting on the date of consumer receipt or assumed receipt) using\nthe ASSUMED-receipt date, even if [LENDER] later learns the consumer\nactually received it on a different date.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every written/electronic validation notice issued, can [LENDER] demonstrate that the §1006.34(c)(3) validation-period end date stated on the notice was calculated from the §1006.34(b)(5) assumed-receipt date (at least 5 days excluding holidays/weekends after [LENDER] provided the notice) + 30 days?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - validation-notice
  - validation-period
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.34-c3i-validation-period-dispute-statement
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 34(b)(5)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Assumed receipt of validation information. Section 1006.34(b)(5) defines the validation period as the period starting on the date that a debt collector provides the validation information required by § 1006.34(c) and ending 30 days after the consumer receives or is assumed to receive it. Section 1006.34(c)(3)(i) through (iii) requires statements that specify the end date of the validation period. If a debt collector provides the validation information in writing or electronically, then, at the time that the debt collector calculates the validation period end date, the debt collector will know only the date on which the consumer is assumed to receive the validation information. In such cases, the debt collector may use that date to calculate the validation period end date even if the debt collector later learns that the consumer received the validation information on a different date."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the assumed-receipt calculation — computing the §1006.34(c)(3) validation-period end date from the §1006.34(b)(5) assumed-receipt date (at least 5 business days after providing the notice) + 30 days, even if actual receipt later differs?
  file_review: 'Spot-check written/electronic validation notices: recompute the stated end date from the assumed-receipt date + 30 days. Objective recomputation check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34c2viii-c1-itemization-fields-required-no-blanks
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34c2viii-c1-itemization-fields-required-no-blanks
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 34(c)(2)(viii)-1 (Itemization fields required; cannot be left blank)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, when [LENDER] provides a validation\nnotice, [LENDER] MUST INCLUDE FIELDS IN THE NOTICE for each of\ninterest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date —\nEVEN IF NONE OF THE ITEMS have been assessed or applied since the\nitemization date. [LENDER] may indicate the value of a required\nfield as \"0,\" \"none,\" or a statement that no such interest/fees/\npayments/credits have been assessed or applied; [LENDER] MAY NOT\nleave a required field blank.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: Can [LENDER] demonstrate, by reviewing validation-notice templates and a sample of issued notices, that the itemization fields for interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date are always populated (with "0," "none," or a substantive amount) and never left blank?
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - validation-notice
  - itemization-fields
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.34-c2-debt-information-required
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 34(c)(2)(viii)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. Itemization of the debt. Section 1006.34(c)(2)(viii) provides that validation information includes an itemization of the current amount of the debt reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date. If providing a validation notice, a debt collector must include fields in the notice for all of these items even if none of the items have been assessed or applied to the debt since the itemization date. A debt collector may indicate that the value of a required field is “0,” “none,” or may state that no interest, fees, payments, or credits have been assessed or applied to the debt; a debt collector may not leave a required field blank."
    drafter_attestation: 'Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064.

      '
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program ensure itemization fields for interest, fees, payments, and credits since the itemization date are always populated ('0,' 'none,' or an amount) and never left blank, even when nothing was assessed/applied?
  file_review: 'Review validation-notice templates and sampled notices: confirm no itemization field is blank. Objective presence check.'
  judgment: false
- id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34c5-c1-residential-mortgage-periodic-statement
  canonical_id: reg-f-1006-suppI-34c5-c1-residential-mortgage-periodic-statement
  section: "Supplement I — Comment 34(c)(5)-1 (Residential-mortgage special rule: cross-reference statement on validation notice)"
  description: "Per CFPB official interpretation, where [LENDER] invokes the\n§1006.34(c)(5) residential-mortgage special rule (substituting the\nReg Z 1026.41(b) periodic statement for the §1006.34(c)(2)(vi)–(viii)\nitemization fields), the cross-reference statement on the validation\nnotice — placed where (vi)–(viii) would have appeared — may, for\nexample, read: \"See the enclosed periodic statement for an\nitemization of the debt.\" A copy of the most recent 1026.41(b)\nperiodic statement must accompany the validation notice in the same\ncommunication.\n"
  type: do
  audit_question: "For every residential-mortgage-debt validation notice relying on §1006.34(c)(5), can [LENDER] demonstrate that the validation notice contains a cross-reference statement (e.g., \"See the enclosed periodic statement for an itemization of the debt\") in the location where (c)(2)(vi)–(viii) would have appeared, AND that the most recent Reg Z 1026.41(b) periodic statement accompanies the notice in the same communication?"
  workflow_phase: servicing
  owner_role: compliance_officer
  secondary_owner_role: default_servicing_analyst
  cadence: continuous
  consequence: ''
  tags:
  - round-b
  - regulator-direct
  - reg-f
  - fdcpa
  - debt-collection
  - supplement-i
  - commentary
  - validation-notice
  - residential-mortgage
  - promoted
  interprets: reg-f-1006.34-c5-residential-mortgage-special-rule
  primary_source:
    tier: 1
    authority: Supplement I to Part 1006, Comment 34(c)(5)-1
    source_class: cfpb-regulation
    source_url: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/12/appendix-Supplement_I_to_part_1006
    snapshot_id: 53bdf1deeb0d5064
    fetched_at: '2026-05-22T18:21:16Z'
    content_hash: sha256:20c7005a1161899fd8e0b4daf6ae0cd0723b8121b16d9b48ff44206412ad2f33
    paragraph_quote: "1. In general. Section 1006.34(c)(5) provides that, for residential mortgage debt, if a periodic statement is required under Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.41 , at the time a debt collector provides the validation notice, a debt collector need not provide the validation information required by § 1006.34(c)(2)(vi) through (viii) if the debt collector provides the consumer, in the same communication with the validation notice, a copy of the most recent periodic statement provided to the consumer under 12 CFR 1026.41 (b), and the debt collector includes on the validation notice, where the validation information required by paragraphs (c)(2)(vi) through (viii) of this section would have appeared, a statement referring to that periodic statement."
    drafter_attestation: "Copied verbatim from snapshot 53bdf1deeb0d5064. The \"See the\nenclosed periodic statement…\" example phrasing immediately\nfollows in the source and is operationalized in description and\naudit_question.\n"
  promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  promoted_from: reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  program_review: Does the program account for the residential-mortgage (c)(5) execution detail — placing a periodic-statement cross-reference where (c)(2)(vi)–(viii) would appear AND including the most recent 1026.41(b) periodic statement in the same communication?
  file_review: Spot-check (c)(5)-path residential-mortgage notices for the cross-reference placement and the accompanying periodic statement. Objective presence/placement check.
  judgment: false
_promotion_history:
- promoted_at: '2026-05-22T18:37:47+00:00'
  candidate_path: obligations\_remediation\_round_b_drafts\reg-f-1006-supplement-i-roundb-v1.yaml
  candidates_promoted: 15
  candidates_skipped_existing: 0
