Comments on the Petition are due on May 2, 2016, and replies are due by May 17, 2016. Bank is also involved in TCPA litigation in which he claims the defendant placed unsolicited calls to his residential line, and as a result is liable for violating the TCPA.  The district court held that Bank’s telephone line was not a residential line because Bank used it for his law practice, and that the calls therefore did not violate the TCPA. Bank appealed the case to the Second Circuit. Upon filing his Petition with the FCC, Bank moved to stay the appeal pending the FCC’s resolution of his Petition.  On April 7th, 2016, the FCC weighed in on the appeal with an amicus brief that acknowledged that it “has never interpreted the term ‘residential telephone line’ for purposes of the TCPA’s restrictions on calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice.” FCC Brief at 8.  Accordingly, the FCC urged the court to “grant Bank’s motion for a stay and, consistent with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, hold this case in abeyance pending the Commission’s disposition of the petition.”  Id. at 2. .