[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 5, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15756-15763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04587]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 02-278; FCC 24-24; FR ID 205127]


Strengthening the Ability of Consumers To Stop Robocalls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts new rules and codifies previously adopted 
protections that make it simpler for consumers to revoke consent to 
unwanted robocalls and robotexts while requiring that callers and 
texters honor these requests in a timely manner. Specifically, the 
Commission adopts rules to make clear that revocation of consent can be 
made in any reasonable manner, require that callers honor do-not-call 
and consent revocation requests within a reasonable time not to exceed 
ten business days of receipt, and limit text senders to a one-time text 
message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages 
be sent under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

[[Page 15757]]


DATES: Amendatory instruction 2 (adding 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(12)) is 
effective April 4, 2024, and amendatory instruction 3 (revising 47 CFR 
64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F) and (d)(3) and adding 47 CFR 64.1200(a)(10) and 
(11)) is delayed indefinitely. The Federal Communications Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard D. Smith of the Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (717) 338-2797 or [email protected]. 
For information regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information 
collection requirements contained in the PRA, contact Cathy Williams, 
Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in CG Docket No. 02-278, FCC 24-24, adopted on February 15, 
2024, and released on February 16, 2024. The full text of this document 
is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-24A1.pdf. The effective date of amendments to Sec.  64.1200(a)(9)(i)(F) 
and (d)(3), and the addition of Sec.  64.1200(a)(10) and (11) which may 
contain new or modified information collection requirements under the 
PRA, will not be effective until six months following review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for such 
rules and issue a Public Notice once that date has been established.
    To request this document in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format) or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., accessible 
format documents, sign language interpreters, CART), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the FCC''s Consumer and Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 24-24 to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This document may contain new or modified information collection 
requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-13. This document will 
be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, 
the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to 
comment on the modified information collection requirements contained 
in this proceeding.

Synopsis

    1. In this final rule, the Commission clarifies and strengthens 
consumers' rights to grant and revoke consent to receive robocalls and 
robotexts. Specifically, we adopt rules to: (1) make clearer that 
revocation of consent can be made in any reasonable manner; (2) require 
that callers honor do-not-call and consent revocation requests within a 
reasonable time not to exceed 10 business days of receipt; (3) limit 
text senders to a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request 
that no further text messages be sent, as well as confirming that any 
revocation of consent applies only to those robocalls and robotexts for 
which consent is required. The proposed rule was published at 88 FR 
42034 on June 29, 2023.

A. Revoking Consent in Any Reasonable Way

    2. The Commission strengthens consumers' right to revoke consent by 
any reasonable means by codifying the right and ensuring callers and 
texters do not unduly restrict it. The Commission believes this will 
make clearer to callers and consumers that a consumer has a right to 
revoke consent under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). 
Specifically, the Commission codifies a new rule that will make clear 
that consumers may revoke prior express consent for autodialed or 
prerecorded or artificial voice calls and autodialed texts in any 
reasonable manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive 
further calls or text messages, and that callers may not infringe on 
that right by designating an exclusive means to revoke consent that 
precludes the use of any other reasonable method.
    3. The Commission agrees that further clarification as to the 
methods that are ``reasonable'' to revoke consent promotes the 
interests of both consumers and callers by ensuring that such requests 
are honored. Specifically, the Commission adopts a new rule that makes 
clear that any revocation request made using an automated, interactive 
voice or key press-activated opt-out mechanism on a robocall; via a 
response of ``stop'' or a similar, standard response message sent in 
reply to an incoming text message; or submitted at a website or 
telephone number provided by the caller to process opt-out requests 
constitute examples of a reasonable means to revoke consent. If a 
called party uses any such method designated by the caller to revoke 
consent, we consider that consent to be definitively revoked by a 
reasonable means, and future robocalls and robotexts from that caller 
must be stopped. When the caller offers such a means to revoke consent, 
that caller cannot allege that the use of such a mechanism by the 
called party is unreasonable. Any such request made by these specific 
means constitutes absolute proof that the called party has used a 
reasonable means to revoke consent.
    4. The Commission adopts a standardized list of the specific words 
that may be used to revoke consent via a reply text message to ensure 
that automated systems can process such requests. Specifically, the 
Commission finds that using the words ``stop,'' ``quit,'' ``end,'' 
``revoke,'' ``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or ``unsubscribe'' via reply text 
message constitutes a per se reasonable means to revoke consent. For 
purposes of revoking consent via a reply text message, the record 
confirms that both consumers and the industry commonly use these 
specific words to convey a reasonable and unambiguous intent to revoke 
consent. In addition, the record suggests that callers can use 
automated means to process these words in order to honor revocation of 
consent requests.
    5. This does not preclude, however, the use of other words and 
phrases to revoke consent. If the reply text contains words or phrases 
other than those listed above, and should any dispute on this point 
arise, the text sender, who is responsible for processing the 
revocation request, will have an opportunity to explain why the 
consumer's use of alternative words or phrases does not constitute a 
reasonable means to revoke consent. In these situations, the Commission 
or the court as the finder of fact will conduct a totality-of-
circumstances analysis to determine whether the request to revoke 
consent has been conveyed in a reasonable manner. Consistent with the 
2015 TCPA Order, published at 80 FR 61129 on October 9, 2015, when 
assessing whether any particular means of revocation used by a consumer 
is reasonable, the finder of fact will look to the totality of the 
facts and circumstances surrounding the specific situation, including, 
for example, whether the consumer had a reasonable expectation that 
they could effectively communicate their request for revocation to the 
caller in that circumstance, and whether the caller can implement the 
mechanisms to effectuate a requested revocation without incurring undue 
burdens. The

[[Page 15758]]

Commission believes this approach balances the ability of consumers to 
easily stop unwanted text messages with the ability of text senders to 
reasonably process such requests.
    6. Although the Commission confirms that there is no mandate that 
texting parties transmitting an autodialed text message must provide 
consumers with any specific means to revoke consent, such as through 
the use of reply text messages, we caution that this is a reasonable 
and widely recognized means for text recipients to revoke prior consent 
to text messages. There may be instances, however, where a text 
initiator chooses to use a texting protocol that does not allow reply 
texts. The Commission adopts a rule that, in those instances, requires 
the text initiator to: (1) provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure 
in each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not available due 
to technical limitations of the texting protocol; and (2) clearly and 
conspicuously provide reasonable alternative ways for a consumer to 
revoke consent, such as a telephone number, website link, or 
instructions to text a different number to revoke consent from further 
unwanted text messages. We recognize that character limits on text 
messages necessitate that such disclosures will need to be succinct to 
avoid unduly infringing on the sender's ability to communicate using a 
text message.
    7. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argue that callers 
should be allowed to designate the specific means to permit consumers 
to revoke consent and that revocation requests must be directed only to 
those designated methods. The Commission therefore codifies a 
prohibition to that end. Allowing callers to limit revocation requests 
only to the specific means that they have designated potentially places 
a significant obstacle in the way of consumers who no longer wish to 
receive such calls by limiting the methods available to revoke consent, 
which is inconsistent with the consumer privacy protections afforded 
under the TCPA. In addition, the clarifications set forth herein ensure 
that consumers have the ability to easily exercise their right to 
revoke consent while providing callers with a reasonable opportunity to 
process such requests made in any reasonable way. For example, as 
discussed below, when the consumer chooses to use a method that has not 
been designated by the caller to process revocation requests, the 
caller will have an opportunity to prove why the method used is not 
reasonable.
    8. The Commission also codifies that, when a consumer uses a method 
other than those discussed above to revoke consent, such as those made 
by voicemail or email to any telephone number or address at which the 
consumer can reasonably expect to reach the caller but which has not 
been designated by the caller as a method to revoke consent, doing so 
creates a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent 
when the called party satisfies their obligation to produce evidence 
that such a request has been made, absent evidence to the contrary. We 
stress that, in the event of a dispute, the consumer must identify to 
the finder of fact the specific method and/or message used to convey 
their revocation of consent in order to avail themselves of this 
rebuttable presumption. As discussed above, in these instances when a 
consumer has demonstrated that they have made a revocation request, and 
the caller disputes that the revocation request has been made using a 
reasonable method, a totality of circumstances analysis will determine 
whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke consent has 
not been conveyed in a reasonable manner. The Commission disagrees with 
commenters who argue this approach is inconsistent with consumers' 
right to revoke by any reasonable means. The Commission's approach is a 
means to ascertain whether a consumer has used a reasonable method to 
revoke consent when the consumer has used a method of their own 
choosing rather than one established by the calling or texting entity.
    9. Lastly, the Commission notes that Sec.  64.1200(c)(2) requires 
that callers not make ``telephone solicitations'' to telephone numbers 
registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry unless the caller has 
obtained the ``prior express invitation or permission'' of the called 
party, in writing. The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify and 
amend its rules to make clear that consumers who have given their 
``prior express invitation or permission'' to individual sellers to 
call their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry have 
the right to revoke consent by any reasonable means. The Commission's 
precedent confirming the right of consumers to revoke consent to 
robocalls applies equally to this situation.

B. Timeframe for Honoring a Do-Not-Call or Revocation Request

    10. The Commission requires that callers honor company-specific do-
not-call and revocation-of-consent requests for robocalls and robotexts 
that are subject to the TCPA within a specific timeframe. Specifically, 
the Commission amends its rules to require that callers honor company-
specific do-not-call and revocation-of-consent requests within a 
reasonable time from the date that the request is made, not to exceed 
10 business days after receipt of the request.
    11. The Commission will monitor compliance with this obligation to 
ensure that such requests are honored in a timely manner and reserves 
the right to adjust this timeframe as necessary in the future as 
technologies continue to advance, and thereby further reduce the time 
necessary to process such requests after notice and comment.
    12. The Commission revises its proposed 24-hour timeframe in 
response to commenter concerns that the proposed 24-hour timeframe 
would not be feasible in many instances. The Commission is persuaded by 
the record, including comments from consumer organizations, that a 
longer timeframe is justified to ensure that entities, including 
smaller entities, have a reasonable opportunity to process do-not-call 
and revocation requests. The Commission believes this outcome 
adequately balances the burdens on callers with the privacy protections 
afforded to consumers, with a ``no longer than 10 business days'' 
backstop to ensure that consumers have certainty about when they can 
expect unwanted communications to stop.
    13. The Commission also amends its rules for exempted package 
delivery calls to substantially reduce the 30-day timeframe to process 
such requests allowed in its current rules. Specifically, the 
Commission amends the exemption that allows package delivery 
notification robocalls and robotexts without consent to require that 
opt-out requests be honored within a reasonable time not to exceed six 
business days. The record suggests that this timeframe is sufficient to 
ensure processing of revocation requests in this specific context. No 
commenter argues for any other timeframe in this context or objects to 
this timeframe.

C. Revocation Confirmation Text Message

1. Confirmation of Revocation Request
    14. The Commission codifies the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling which 
clarified that a one-time text message confirming a consumer's request 
that no further text messages be sent does not violate the TCPA or the 
Commission's rules as long as the confirmation text merely confirms the 
called party's opt-out request and does not include any marketing or 
promotional information,

[[Page 15759]]

and the text is the only additional message sent to the called party 
after receipt of the opt-out request. Consistent with the Soundbite 
Declaratory Ruling, if the confirmation text is sent within five 
minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer's 
prior express consent. If it takes longer, however, the sender will 
have to make a showing that such delay was reasonable, and the longer 
this delay, the more difficult it will be to demonstrate that such a 
message falls within the original prior consent. In the Soundbite 
Declaratory Ruling, the Commission determined that ``confirmation 
messages ultimately benefit and protect consumers by helping to ensure, 
via such confirmation, that the consumer who ostensibly opted out in 
fact no longer wishes to receive text messages from entities from whom 
the consumer previously expressed an affirmative desire to receive such 
messages.'' The Commission agrees with numerous commenters that 
codifying this ruling will better ensure that both text senders and 
recipients are aware of this ruling, including the limitations on such 
one-time confirmation text messages.
    15. The Commission also adopts its proposal to codify that senders 
can include a request for clarification in this one-time confirmation 
text, provided the sender ceases all further robocalls and robotexts 
absent an affirmative response from the consumer. The Commission limits 
this opportunity to request clarification to instances where the text 
recipient has consented to several categories of text messages from the 
text sender. Thus, this rule will give consumers an opportunity to 
specify which types of text messages they wish to no longer get, when 
the texter sends different types of messages. That request for 
clarification can seek confirmation that the consumer wishes to opt out 
of all categories of messages from the sender, provided the sender 
ceases all further robocalls and robotexts absent an affirmative 
response from the consumer that they do, in fact, wish to receive 
further communications from the sender. The lack of any response to the 
confirmation text must be treated by the sender as a revocation of 
consent for all robocalls and robotexts from the sender.
    16. The Commission adopts this proposal in response to Capital 
One's petition seeking confirmation that the text sender may request 
clarification in its one-time confirmation message of the scope of the 
recipient's revocation request when that recipient has consented to 
receiving multiple categories of informational messages from the 
sender. Banks and financial institutions support this request, 
indicating that consumers often consent to receive multiple categories 
of informational messages, such as fraud alerts, payment notices, and 
declined card transactions. In these situations, opt-out requests can 
be ambiguous as to whether the request applies to all or just certain 
types of those messages. Consumer groups have also expressed support 
for Capital One's request, provided that a lack of any response to the 
confirmation text message must be interpreted by the sender to mean 
that the consumer's revocation request was intended to encompass all 
categories of robocalls and robotexts and the sender must therefore 
cease all further robocalls and robotexts to that consumer absent 
further clarification from the consumer.
    17. Consistent with the Soundbite Declaratory Ruling and Capital 
One's request, the Commission codifies that any such clarification 
message must not contain any marketing or advertising content or seek 
to persuade the recipient to reconsider their opt-out decision. Rather, 
this clarification is strictly limited to informing the recipient of 
the broad scope of the opt-out request absent some further confirmation 
from the consumer that they wish to continue receiving certain 
categories of text messages from the sender.
    18. The Commission emphasizes that this confirmation text message 
is limited to a final one-time text message. In the absence of an 
affirmative response from the consumer that they wish to continue to 
receive certain categories of informational calls or text messages from 
the sender, no further robocalls or robotexts for which consent is 
required can be made to this consumer. In addition, a ``stop'' or 
similar text sent in response to the one-time request for confirmation 
does not then allow the text sender to another request for further 
clarification. As noted above, both industry and consumer groups 
support this proposal.
2. Scope of Consent Revocation
    19. The Commission clarifies that any revocation of consent request 
applies only to those robocalls and robotexts for which consent is 
required under the TCPA. Once that consent is revoked, the caller may 
no longer make robocalls or send robotexts to a called party absent an 
exemption to the consent obligation. However, the Commission has 
granted exemptions from the consent requirement for certain categories 
of robocalls and robotexts. In these situations, consent is not 
required for the caller to make or send certain exempted informational 
robocalls or robotexts. Instead, the caller is required to comply with 
specific conditions including number and frequency limits of such 
communications; the caller must also stop such communications only if 
the consumer makes a request to opt out of the exempted communications.
    20. As a result, the rule that the Commission codifies here that 
requires callers to honor a revocation of consent request made by any 
reasonable means applies only to robocalls and robotexts that the 
called party has consented to receive and is separate from the ability 
of callers to make such informational communications pursuant to an 
exemption, which do not require consent. Therefore, in effect, when a 
consumer revokes consent with regard to telemarketing robocalls or 
robotexts, the caller can continue to reach the consumer pursuant to an 
exempted informational call, which does not require consent, unless and 
until the consumer separately expresses an intent to opt out of these 
exempted calls. Where the consumer has revoked consent in response to a 
telemarketing call or message, it remains unclear whether the consumer 
has expressed an intent to opt out of otherwise exempted informational 
calls absent some indication to the contrary. The Commission agrees 
with financial institutions' concerns that consumers may inadvertently 
opt out of exempted informational calls or messages such as fraud 
alerts when attempting to stop unwanted telemarketing calls from their 
bank. If the revocation request is made directly in response to an 
exempted informational call or text, however, this constitutes an opt-
out request from the consumer and all further non-emergency robocalls 
and robotexts must stop. In these circumstances, there is no ambiguity 
that the consumer's intent is to no longer receive such exempted 
informational calls from the caller: the opt-out request is a 
communication from the consumer regarding the exempted informational 
calls and acts as a revocation of consent for all calls from the 
caller.
    21. The Commission disagrees with commenters that argue the 
Commission should carve out specific subcategories of informational 
messages such as fraud alerts, identity theft, and breach notifications 
and force consumers to revoke consent to these specific categories of 
informational messages even when the caller chooses not to comply with 
the conditions of an underlying exemption for such informational 
messages. The Commission believes this would be burdensome to consumers 
and

[[Page 15760]]

unnecessary given the ability of caller to comply with the conditions 
of an exemption to make such communications in the absence of having 
consent and the ability to send a confirmation text informing consumers 
of the scope of their revocation request affording them an opportunity 
to provide consent for any type of calls or messages that they wish to 
continue receiving from the caller.
    22. Lastly, the Commission takes this opportunity to confirm that, 
when consent is revoked in any reasonable manner, that revocation 
extends to both robocalls and robotexts regardless of the medium used 
to communicate the revocation of consent. For example, if the consumer 
revokes consent using a reply text message, then consent is deemed 
revoked not only to further robotexts but also robocalls from that 
caller. The TCPA requires that the caller obtain the prior express 
consent of the ``called party.'' The Commission has long held that the 
restriction encompasses both voice calls and texts. Consent is granted 
from a consumer to a calling party to be contacted at a particular 
wireless phone number or residential line. Revocation of consent, 
therefore, is an instruction that the caller no longer contact the 
consumer at that number. As a result, consent is specific to the called 
party and not the method of communication used to revoke consent. Thus, 
if a called party has revoked consent via any reasonable means, the 
caller no longer has consent to make further robocalls or robotexts to 
that called party absent instructions to the contrary from the 
consumer.

D. Legal Authority

    23. The Commission's legal authority for the rules adopted herein 
derives from section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(the Act). As discussed above, as the expert agency on the TCPA, the 
Commission has addressed issues relating to prior express consent by 
robocall consumers on numerous occasions.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone 
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking, 
published at 88 FR 42034 on June 29, 2023, released in June 2023 (TCPA 
Consent NPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the TCPA Consent NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. This 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    25. The Report and Order clarifies and strengthens the right of 
consumers to grant or revoke consent to receive robocalls and robotexts 
under TCPA. Under the TCPA, certain types of calls and texts may only 
be sent with the prior express consent of the called party. The ability 
of consumers to exercise this right to provide or revoke consent is 
essential to protecting the privacy rights of consumers by allowing 
them to decide which callers may communicate with them via robocalls 
and robotexts.
    26. In addition, the Report and Order codifies prior Commission 
rulings and adopts new requirements to ensure that the requirements 
relating to providing or revoking consent under the TCPA are clear to 
both callers and consumers. Specifically, the Report and Order makes 
clear that consumers may revoke prior express consent in any reasonable 
manner that clearly expresses a desire not to receive further calls or 
text messages, including using an automated, interactive voice or key 
press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call, using the words ``stop,'' 
``quit,'' ``end,'' ``revoke,'' ``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or 
``unsubscribe'' sent in reply to an incoming text message, or pursuant 
to a website designated by the caller to process opt-out requests. 
These approaches constitute a reasonable means to revoke consent and 
that callers may not infringe on that right by designating an exclusive 
means to revoke consent that precludes the use of any other reasonable 
method.
    27. The Report and Order also requires that callers honor do-not-
call and revocation requests within a reasonable time not to exceed ten 
business days of receipt. Further, the Report and Order reiterates that 
consumers only need to revoke consent once to stop getting all calls 
and texts from a specific entity. It also codifies that a one-time text 
message confirming a consumer's request that no further text messages 
be sent does not violate the TCPA or the Commission's rules as long as 
the confirmation text merely confirms the called party's opt-out 
request, does not include any marketing or promotional information, and 
the text is the only additional message sent to the called party after 
receipt of the opt-out request.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    28. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA. Several commenter did, 
however, make reference to the potential compliance burdens including 
the impact on small businesses. Commenters contend that compliance with 
an obligation to honor revocation of consent requests within 24-hours 
would be burdensome for small entities.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    29. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not 
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    30. 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 rules adopted herein. 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.
    31. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's 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 SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500

[[Page 15761]]

employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million 
businesses.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.''
    34. Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating call centers 
that initiate or receive communications for others-via telephone, 
facsimile, email, or other communication modes-for purposes such as (1) 
promoting clients, products, or services, (2) taking orders for 
clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client, and (4) providing 
information or assistance regarding a client's products or services. 
These establishments do not own the product or provide the services 
they are representing on behalf of clients. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies firms having $16.5 million or 
less in annual receipts as small. According to U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017, there were 2,250 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of this number 1,435 firms had revenue of less than $10 
million. Based on this information, the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size 
standard.
    35. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA 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 in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that 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.

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

    36. The rules adopted in the Report and Order may result in 
modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for 
small entities. In cases where consumers invoke their right to grant or 
revoke consent to small entity callers to receive robocalls and 
robotexts under the TCPA, these callers may need to implement new 
methods to record and track such revocation requests to honor them 
within the specified timeframes. This includes honoring any revocation 
or do-not-call requests made by any reasonable means including by using 
an automated, interactive voice or key press-activated opt-out 
mechanism on a call, using the words ``stop,'' ``quit,'' ``end,'' 
``revoke,'' ``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or ``unsubscribe'' sent in reply 
to an incoming text message, or pursuant to a website designated by the 
caller when those options are provided by the calling party. In 
situations where a text initiator chooses to use a texting protocol 
that does not allow reply texts, the text initiator must: (1) provide a 
clear and conspicuous disclosure in each text to the consumer that two-
way texting is not available due to technical limitations of the 
texting protocol; and (2) clearly and conspicuously provide reasonable 
alternative ways for a consumer to revoke consent, such as a telephone 
number, website link, or instructions to text a different number to 
revoke consent from further unwanted text messages.
    37. In addition, callers must process such requests within a 
reasonable time not to exceed ten business days of receipt, and within 
six business days for package delivery services. This may necessitate 
small and other entities to update their current systems and processes 
for handling such requests.
    38. There is not sufficient information on the record to quantify 
the costs of compliance for small entities, or to determine whether it 
will be necessary for small entities to hire professionals to comply 
with the adopted rules. The Commission notes that many of the 
requirements contained in the Report and Order have been adopted in 
rulings dating back many years or even decades. As a result, the 
Commission anticipates that many callers, including smaller entities, 
have already made efforts to comply with these obligations and may have 
limited new burdens.

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

    39. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact 
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, 
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
rules and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the 
rule considered by the agency which affects the impact on small 
entities was rejected.''
    40. In the Report and Order, the Commission took steps to minimize 
significant economic impact on small entities and considered 
alternatives to the adoption of new rules and processes that may impact 
small entities. In response to commenter requests, the Commission 
provided greater specificity as to the methods that are deemed 
reasonable to revoke consent. Taking this step provides callers, 
including many small entities, with additional guidance regarding the 
means to comply with our rules. Alternatively, the Commission declined 
to allow callers to designate the use of specific technologies to 
permit consumers to revoke consent, such as the use of reply text 
messages, and grant callers with the flexibility to process revocation 
requests by any reasonable means. The Commission also modified our 
proposal

[[Page 15762]]

requiring that the revocation of consent requests and do-not-call 
requests must be processed within 24-hours. Rather, in response to 
concerns from numerous commenters that the 24-hour limitation is not 
feasible, our amended rules require such requests be honored within a 
reasonable time not to exceed ten business days. This provides callers, 
including many smaller entities, greater flexibility to process 
revocation requests that are made via any reasonable means. Without 
objection, the Commission also amends the exemption that allows package 
delivery notification robocalls and robotexts, with revocation requests 
now reduced from 30 business days to requests being honored within a 
reasonable time not to exceed six business days. In addition to 
providing certainty to consumers that their requests are being 
addressed, there were no objections to this timeframe and the record 
reflects that this provides package delivery companies, some of which 
are small entities, a reasonable opportunity to process such requests. 
Finally, the Commission codifies into its rules the ability of callers 
to send a final, one-time confirmation text in response to a request to 
opt-out of further messages. This will benefit both callers and 
consumers by allowing confirmation of the consumer's intent to no 
longer receive calls or text messages from the caller.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 301, 303, 316, 345, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-
1473, unless otherwise noted; Div. P, sec. 503, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 
Stat. 348, 1091; sec. 5, Pub. L. 117-223, 136 Stat 2280, 2285-88 (47 
U.S.C. 345 note).

Subpart L--Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, 
and Facsimile Advertising

0
2. Effective April 4, 2024, Sec.  64.1200 is amended by adding reserved 
paragraphs (a)(10) and (11) and paragraph (a)(12) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (10) through (11) [Reserved]
    (12) A one-time text message confirming a request to revoke consent 
from receiving any further calls or text messages does not violate 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section as long as the confirmation 
text merely confirms the text recipient's revocation request and does 
not include any marketing or promotional information, and is the only 
additional message sent to the called party after receipt of the 
revocation request. If the confirmation text is sent within five 
minutes of receipt, it will be presumed to fall within the consumer's 
prior express consent. If it takes longer, however, the sender will 
have to make a showing that such delay was reasonable. To the extent 
that the text recipient has consented to several categories of text 
messages from the text sender, the confirmation message may request 
clarification as to whether the revocation request was meant to 
encompass all such messages; the sender must cease all further texts 
for which consent is required absent further clarification that the 
recipient wishes to continue to receive certain text messages.
* * * * *

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, Sec.  64.1200 is amended by revising paragraph 
(a)(9)(i)(F), adding paragraphs (a)(10) and (11), and revising 
paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) The package delivery company must offer package recipients the 
ability to opt out of receiving future delivery notification calls and 
messages and must honor an opt-out request within a reasonable time 
from the date such request is made, not to exceed six business days; 
and,
* * * * *
    (10) A called party may revoke prior express consent, including 
prior express written consent, to receive calls or text messages made 
pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section by 
using any reasonable method to clearly express a desire not to receive 
further calls or text messages from the caller or sender. Any 
revocation request made using an automated, interactive voice or key 
press-activated opt-out mechanism on a call; using the words ``stop,'' 
``quit,'' ``end,'' ``revoke,'' ``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or 
``unsubscribe'' sent in reply to an incoming text message; or pursuant 
to a website or telephone number designated by the caller to process 
opt-out requests constitutes a reasonable means per se to revoke 
consent. If a called party uses any such method to revoke consent, that 
consent is considered definitively revoked and the caller may not send 
additional robocalls and robotexts. If a reply to an incoming text 
message uses words other than ``stop,'' ``quit,'' ``end,'' ``revoke,'' 
``opt out,'' ``cancel,'' or ``unsubscribe,'' the caller must treat that 
reply text as a valid revocation request if a reasonable person would 
understand those words to have conveyed a request to revoke consent. 
Should the text initiator choose to use a texting protocol that does 
not allow reply texts, it must provide a clear and conspicuous 
disclosure on each text to the consumer that two-way texting is not 
available due to technical limitations of the texting protocol, and 
clearly and conspicuously provide on each text reasonable alternative 
ways to revoke consent. All requests to revoke prior express consent or 
prior express written consent made in any reasonable manner must be 
honored within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days from 
receipt of such request. Callers or senders of text messages covered by 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) and (c)(2) of this section may not 
designate an exclusive means to request revocation of consent.
    (11) The use of any other means to revoke consent not listed in 
paragraph (a)(10) of this section, such as a voicemail or email to any 
telephone number or email address intended to reach the caller, creates 
a rebuttable presumption that the consumer has revoked consent when the 
called party satisfies their obligation to produce evidence that such a 
request has been made, absent evidence to the contrary. In those 
circumstances, a totality of circumstances analysis will determine 
whether the caller can demonstrate that a request to revoke consent has 
not been conveyed in a reasonable manner.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or 
entity making an artificial or prerecorded-voice telephone call 
pursuant to an exemption under paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (v) of 
this section or any call for

[[Page 15763]]

telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) 
receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not to 
receive calls from that person or entity, the person or entity must 
record the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided, and 
telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the request is 
made. Persons or entities making such calls (or on whose behalf such 
calls are made) must honor a residential subscriber's do-not-call 
request within a reasonable time from the date such request is made. 
This period may not exceed ten (10) business days from the receipt of 
such request. If such requests are recorded or maintained by a party 
other than the person or entity on whose behalf the call is made, the 
person or entity on whose behalf the call is made will be liable for 
any failures to honor the do-not-call request. A person or entity 
making an artificial or prerecorded-voice telephone call pursuant to an 
exemption under paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) through (v) or any call for 
telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer's prior express 
permission to share or forward the consumer's request not to be called 
to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a call is 
made or an affiliated entity.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-04587 Filed 3-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P