or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with the laws of any State with respect to debt collection practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter ....”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 3003(d) (noting that prescribed federal procedures for debt collection preempt state laws only to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with federal procedures). While the FDCPA is silent as to whether local regulation of debt collection is also permitted, the Supreme Court has held that substantively identical statutory language under other federal regulatory statutes does not preempt local regulation. See Wis. Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 605-08, 111 S.Ct. 2476, 115 L.Ed.2d 532 (1991) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331
holding that statute allowing states to regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device  if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by the federal statute did not preempt local regulation since mere silence  cannot suffice to establish a clear and manifest purpose to preempt local authority recognizing that when an agency promulgates a regulation that is intended to preempt state law the regulation should not be disturbed unless there is evidence that it is contrary to congressional intent recognizing that sale of insurance affects the public interest and is subject to state regulation holding fifra does not preempt local use regulations holding that requiring a permit and the restoration of the land after the mining operations had concluded did not preempt federal law however the court did recognize that where a state regulation rendered it impossible to exercise a right granted through federal legislation that state regulation would be in conflict with the federal right