[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15802-15806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04586]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 24-24; FR ID 205124]


Strengthening the Ability of Consumers To Stop Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on whether the Telephone Consumer Protection 
(TCPA) applies to robocalls and robotexts from wireless providers to 
their own subscribers and therefore whether such providers must have 
consent to make robocalls and send robotexts to their own subscribers. 
To the extent that wireless providers have consent to robocall or 
robotext their own subscribers, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
wireless subscribers can exercise their right to revoke such consent by 
communicating a revocation of consent request to their wireless 
provider and that such requests must be honored. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on a request to require automated opt-out 
mechanisms on every call that uses an artificial or prerecorded voice.

DATES: Comments are due on or before April 4, 2024, and reply comments 
are due on or before April 19, 2024. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must 
be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before May 6, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document. 
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). Interested 
parties may file comments or reply comments, identified by CG Docket 
No. 02-278 by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (March 19, 2020), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Richard D. Smith, Competition Policy Division, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at [email protected] or at (717) 338-
2797. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
proposed information collection requirements contained in this 
document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at 
(202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in CG Docket No. 02-278, 
adopted on February 15, 2024, and released on February 16, 2024. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection at the 
following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people 
with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission email to [email protected] and to Cathy Williams, 
FCC, via email to [email protected].

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB 
to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of

[[Page 15803]]

1995, Public Law 104-13. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to 
post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The 
required summary of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is 
available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

A. Wireless Provider Exemption

    1. The Commission seeks comment on whether the TCPA applies to 
robocalls and robotexts from wireless providers to their own 
subscribers and therefore such providers must have consent to make 
prerecorded voice, artificial voice, or autodialed calls or texts to 
their own subscribers. The Commission seeks comment on whether wireless 
providers satisfy any TCPA consent obligation pursuant to the unique 
nature of the relationship and service that they provide to their 
subscribers. Specifically, the Commission asks whether wireless 
providers require additional consent beyond that provided by the unique 
nature of this relationship with their subscribers to satisfy this 
requirement. To the extent that wireless providers have consent to 
robocall or robotext their own subscribers, the Commission proposes 
that wireless subscribers, as any other called party, be able to revoke 
such consent by communicating a revocation of consent request to their 
wireless provider and that such request must be honored. The Commission 
seeks comment on these issues as set forth in more detail below.
    2. In the 2023 TCPA Consent NPRM, published at 88 FR 42034 on June 
29, 2023, the Commission proposed to require wireless providers to 
honor their customers' requests to cease robocalls and robotexts. To 
effectuate this result, the Commission proposed at that time to create 
and codify a qualified exemption--based on its authority under section 
227(b)(2)(C)--for informational robocalls and robotexts from wireless 
providers to their subscribers, subject to certain conditions including 
honoring requests to opt out of such communications. In response to 
requests for comments on this proposal, wireless providers suggest that 
the TCPA's prohibitions do not apply to communications from wireless 
providers to their subscribers because there is no charge to the 
subscriber and they have a unique relationship with their subscribers. 
In light of these arguments, the Commission now revisits that proposal.
    3. The Commission now seeks further comment on the argument that, 
pursuant to the 1992 TCPA Order, published at 57 FR 48333 on October 
23, 1992, or statutory language, wireless providers are wholly excluded 
from the application of the TCPA's requirement to obtain consent before 
robocalling or robotexting their own subscribers because there is no 
charge imposed on the subscriber. In 1992, the Commission concluded 
that wireless carriers need not obtain ``additional consent'' prior to 
initiating autodialed, artificial voice, or prerecorded voice calls to 
their own subscribers. Although it stated that such robocalls could be 
made by wireless providers to their own subscribers without a charge, 
the Commission did not specify whether it intended to wholly exclude 
wireless providers from the statutory obligation to obtain consent 
based solely on the calls being free to the called party. Moreover, 
shortly following this ruling Congress amended the TCPA to grant the 
Commission express statutory authority to exempt from the prior-
express-consent requirement calls to wireless numbers that are not 
charged to the called party subject to such conditions as the 
Commission deems necessary to protect the privacy rights afforded under 
the TCPA. Section 227(b)(2)(C)'s authority to grant exemptions from the 
prior-express-consent requirement is predicated on the ability of 
callers to make such calls with no charge to the consumer. The 
Commission believes Congress could not have meant the pre-amended TCPA 
to exempt free calls from the consent requirement because its amendment 
describes exactly how the Commission must go about that, including an 
analysis of each type of exempted call and an affirmative showing that 
such an exemption does not unduly harm consumer privacy.
    4. Similarly, the Commission is not persuaded that the pre-amended 
TCPA itself exempts robocalls to wireless subscribers for which there 
is no charge. The TCPA prohibits robocalls absent an emergency purpose 
or with the prior express consent of the called party ``to any 
telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone 
service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common 
carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged 
for the call.'' As the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
explained in interpreting this provision: ``[t]he rule of the last 
antecedent requires the phrase `for which the called party is charged 
for the call,' [in section 227(b)(1)], `to be applied to the words or 
phrase immediately preceding (i.e., ``any service''), and not to be 
construed as extending to or including others more remote.'' As the 
court concluded ``[i]f the phrase `any service for which the called 
party is charged for the call' requires that the party be charged per 
call for the `paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized 
mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service' in order 
for the party to prohibit autodialed calls, then the listing of these 
services would be superfluous because they are already included under 
the term `any service for which the called party is charged.' '' 
Another Federal circuit court decision has reached the same conclusion.
    5. This interpretation of the relevant statutory provision is 
consistent with the Commission's own treatment of robocalls to wireless 
numbers for which there is no charge to the called party. For example, 
the Commission has allowed certain specific categories of robocalls to 
wireless telephone numbers that can be made without a charge to the 
called party only when they have been granted an exemption from the 
TCPA's consent obligation. The Commission, therefore, seeks comment on 
the contention that either the 1992 TCPA Order or the TCPA itself 
wholly excludes wireless providers from the TCPA's consent requirement 
when communicating with their own subscribers solely because their 
calls and texts are free to their subscribers. Rather, read in light of 
the subsequent statutory amendment, the Commission believes the 1992 
TCPA Order's reference to the ability of wireless providers to 
communicate with their subscribers without imposing any charge on those 
subscribers is an example of the unique nature of the wireless provider 
and subscriber relationship that supported the Commission's conclusion 
that such providers need not obtain ``additional consent'' under the 
TCPA to robocall their own subscribers. The Commission seeks comment on 
this analysis.
    6. Should the Commission determine that wireless providers are 
required to obtain consent and have effectively obtained consent to 
make robocalls and send robotexts to their own subscribers by virtue of 
their unique relationship

[[Page 15804]]

with their subscribers, the Commission seeks comment on whether this 
consent should extend to robocalls and robotexts that contain 
telemarketing or advertisements. In 2012, the Commission adopted rules 
requiring prior express consent to be obtained in writing for 
autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to wireless numbers. In 
so doing, however, the Commission has not extended this requirement to 
robocalls made by a wireless provider to their own subscribers. As a 
result, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should revisit this 
issue to require prior express written consent to be obtained for any 
such robocall or robotext that contains telemarketing or advertising.
    7. The Commission seeks comment on whether the right to revoke 
consent extends to wireless subscribers when they receive unwanted 
robocalls and robotexts from their wireless provider, just as it does 
to any robocalls or texts sent pursuant to the TCPA. As a result, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether wireless providers must honor any 
revocation or opt-out requests from their own subscribers that are made 
through any reasonable means and at any time. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether, if it were to find wireless providers have consent 
based on having a unique relationship with their subscribers, the 
Commission should codify a new rule to that effect that would make 
clear consumers also have a right to revoke consent to such 
communications. Although many of the messages sent by wireless 
providers to their own subscribers may be welcome and provide useful 
information, as wireless commenters suggest, the Commission does not 
believe there is any reason to deprive wireless subscribers of the same 
right to exercise revocation of consent when they make an affirmative 
request not to receive such communications. In this circumstance, the 
subscriber has made clear that they do not wish to receive such further 
communications from their wireless provider regardless of the merits of 
the robocalls and robotexts that they receive. The record in this 
matter confirms that at least some wireless subscribers do not wish to 
receive these communications from their wireless provider.
    8. The Commission does not believe that any obligation to honor 
revocation requests is unduly burdensome to wireless providers. In 
fact, the record suggests that some wireless providers already honor 
opt-out requests on many communications to subscribers. Other callers 
have implemented such measures for decades to comply with the 
Commission's rules. Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on ways 
to reduce any new burdens such a requirement might entail, including 
for smaller wireless providers. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal and any other issues commenters may wish to raise in this 
context, including any alternative proposals set forth in the TCPA 
Consent NPRM that would allow it to balance consumer privacy rights 
without unduly interfering with the ability of wireless providers to 
communicate critical information to their subscribers.
    9. Having proposed to confirm that wireless providers are subject 
to the TCPA when communicating with their subscribers, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether wireless providers have effectively obtained 
consent to make robocalls and send robotexts to their own subscribers 
by virtue of their unique relationship with their subscribers. Several 
wireless providers citing the 1992 TCPA Order contend that an inherent 
unique relationship renders it unnecessary to obtain any additional 
form of consent to communicate with their own subscribers.
    10. Wireless providers are in a unique position to accurately 
obtain, track, and maintain records of their subscribers' activities, 
including prepaid subscribers, to ensure that they are sent critical, 
time-sensitive information to avoid inadvertently losing their wireless 
service or experiencing bill shock from overages or roaming fees. The 
Commission has acknowledged the benefit of these communications and has 
encouraged wireless providers to send them to their wireless 
subscribers. In some instances, the Commission's rules require these 
communications so that, for example, low-income consumers do not 
inadvertently lose benefits that make their service affordable. The 
ability to provide such information is a unique function of the 
wireless provider and subscriber relationship that advances the 
interests of consumers by ensuring they are informed of any potential 
risk to the ongoing provision of their wireless service. As a result, 
the Commission agrees that wireless providers have a unique 
relationship that allows them to send critical information to their 
subscribers that their subscribers may welcome. In addition, wireless 
providers are in a unique position in that they offer the specific 
service over which these communications are made, including the 
provision of the unique telephone number at which subscribers are 
contacted over that service. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the nature of this unique relationship and service continues to render 
it unnecessary for wireless providers to obtain any additional consent 
from their subscribers, as the Commission concluded in the 1992 TCPA 
Order. The Commission seeks comment on whether that view is incorrect, 
e.g., because the TCPA requires a more affirmative statement from a 
consumer that they consent to robocalls. Parties arguing for this 
conclusion should state whether such a view could upset the status quo 
such that millions of subscribers who may currently receive robocalls 
and robotexts they welcome from their providers would no longer be able 
to receive them unless they take steps to consent. And, if so, the 
Commission seeks comment on how it should proceed to avoid 
inadvertently disrupting the flow of information that wireless 
subscribers have come to expect or burdening wireless providers with 
the necessity of obtaining such consent from their existing 
subscribers.

B. Expanding Opt-Out Requirements

    11. The Commission seeks comment on the National Consumer Law 
Center's (NCLC) request that the Commission amend section 64.1200(b)(3) 
of its rules to require an automated opt-out mechanism on every call 
that contains an artificial or prerecorded voice. NCLC argues that 
consumers ``complain about the seemingly unstoppable'' prerecorded non-
marketing calls from entities such as medical professionals and, in 
NCLC's view, that would harmonize the treatment of such calls with 
those to residential lines. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal, including whether such a change is necessary and what the 
compliance costs of such a change would be on callers including any 
alternatives that would minimize compliance burdens on smaller 
entities.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies proposed in 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public 
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments 
in the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including 
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and the

[[Page 15805]]

IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    13. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether the TCPA 
applies to robocalls and robotexts from wireless providers to their own 
subscribers and therefore such providers must have consent to make 
prerecorded voice, artificial voice, or autodialed calls or texts to 
their own subscribers. The Commission seeks comment on whether wireless 
providers satisfy the TCPA's consent obligation pursuant to the unique 
nature of the relationship and service that they provide to their 
subscribers. To the extent that wireless providers have consent to 
robocall or robotext their own subscribers, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether wireless subscribers, as any other called party, can 
exercise their right to revoke such consent by communicating a 
revocation of consent request to their wireless provider and that such 
request must be honored. Lastly, the Commission seeks comment on a 
request to amend its rules to require automated opt-out mechanisms for 
every non-telemarketing call that uses an artificial or prerecorded 
voice that can be used by the called party to stop such calls.

B. Legal Basis

    14. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to section 227 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    15. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    16. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. The Commission, therefore 
describe at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could 
be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific 
size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
    17. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    18. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    19. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these service 
providers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    20. The FNPRM seeks comment on issues that may alter the 
Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, 
or compliance requirements for small entities. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether wireless providers have effectively obtained consent 
to make robocalls and send robotexts to their own subscribers by virtue 
of their unique relationship with their subscribers or if they must 
obtain such consent for robocalls and robotexts. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the right to revoke consent extends to wireless 
subscribers when they receive unwanted robocalls and robotexts from 
their wireless provider, just as it does to any robocalls or robotexts 
sent pursuant to the TCPA. In particular, whether wireless providers 
would be required to honor any revocation or opt-out requests from 
their own subscribers that are made through any reasonable means and at 
any time. If adopted, this may require wireless providers to obtain 
consent from their own subscribers for robocalls and robotexts and may 
require such providers to maintain records on whether they have such 
consent and on any revocation of consent by their subscribers. 
Additionally, such revocation may be from all robocalls and robotexts, 
or from certain ones (such as marketing) and the wireless providers 
would be required to maintain such records on the specific revocation 
requests. The Commission also seeks comment on a request to require 
every call that uses an artificial or prerecorded voice to provide an 
automated opt-out mechanism. There is not sufficient information in the 
record to quantify the cost of compliance for small entities, or to 
determine whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire 
professionals to comply with these proposals. The Commission will 
review the record and further examine the economic impact of the 
proposals on small entities following the review of

[[Page 15806]]

comments filed in response to the FNPRM.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has 
considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives, among others: ``(1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such 
small entities.''
    22. In the FNPRM the Commission seeks comment on several 
alternatives that may impact small entities. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether wireless providers have effectively obtained consent 
to make robocalls and send robotexts to their own subscribers by virtue 
of their unique relationship with their subscribers and whether this 
consent extends to telemarketing or other messages, or if providers 
must obtain consent from their subscribers for such robocalls and 
robotexts. The Commission seeks comment on whether the right to revoke 
consent for robocalls and robotexts extends to wireless subscribers 
when they receive unwanted robocalls and robotexts from their own 
wireless provider, just as it does to any robocalls or robotexts sent 
to a consumer. The Commission seeks comment on whether wireless 
providers must honor any revocation or opt-out requests from their own 
subscribers that are made through any reasonable means and at any time.
    23. This proposal, if adopted, would apply to all wireless 
providers, including small wireless entities. The Commission expects 
that the obligation to honor revocation requests will not be unduly 
burdensome to small wireless providers and recognizes that some 
wireless providers already honor opt-out requests on many 
communications to subscribers. The Commission observes that other 
entities have implemented such measures to honor revocation requests 
for decades to comply with the Commission's rules. Nevertheless, the 
Commission seeks comment on ways to reduce any new burdens such 
requirements might create for smaller wireless providers. Lastly, the 
Commission seeks comment on any burdens imposed by requiring all 
artificial or prerecorded voice calls to provide an automated opt-out 
mechanism to stop such calls including any alternatives that would 
minimize the impact on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    24. None.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-04586 Filed 3-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P