On July 21st, an ex parte was filed with the FCC asking it to interpret the TCPA consistent with Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4377 (June 23, 2014), where the United States Supreme Court Supreme Court decision supporting the position advanced by Wells Fargo that the term “called party” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) must mean “intended recipient.”    The ex parte notes that the Supreme Court provided a stern reminder to agencies that in interpreting statutory ambiguities, “words of a statute must be read in their context with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme,” that “[a] statutory provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme . . .because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law,” and that agencies must operate “within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.”  Hence, the ex parte argues that consistent with the need to interpret the term “called party” in a way that does not render other parts of the statute meaningless and to apply a reasonable interpretation, the FCC should clarify that “called party” must mean “intended recipient.”