[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73321-73330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19028]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 23-362, FCC 24-84; FR ID 239002]
Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on
Protecting Consumers From Unwanted Robocalls and Robotexts
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) proposes steps to protect consumers from the abuse
of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in robocalls alongside actions that
clear the path for positive uses of AI, including its use to improve
access to the telephone network for people with disabilities.
Specifically, the document proposes to: define AI-generated calls,
adopt new rules that would require callers disclose to consumers when
they receive an AI-generated call, adopt protections for consumers to
ensure that callers adequately apprise them of their use of AI-
generated calls when consumers affirmatively consent to receive such
calls, adopt protections to ensure that positive uses of AI that have
already helped people with disabilities use the telephone network can
thrive without threat of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
liability. The document also seeks additional comment and information
on developing technologies that can alert consumers to unwanted or
illegal calls and texts, including AI-generated calls.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 10, 2024, and reply
comments are due on or before October 25, 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). You may submit
comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59, by any of the following
methods 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 hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
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 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please
contact Richard D. Smith, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy Division,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at [email protected] or
(717) 338-2797 or Noah Cherry, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
[email protected] or (202) 418-7835. 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 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in CG Docket
No. 23-362, FCC 24-84, adopted on August 7, 2024, and released on
August 8, 2024. The full text of this document is available for public
inspection at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-84A1.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), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
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 via email to [email protected] and to Cathy
Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected].
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 NPRM is
[[Page 73322]]
available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document
contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites
the general public to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due November 12, 2024.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e)
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, 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.
Synopsis
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Complaints regarding unwanted and illegal robocalls and
robotexts are consistently the top category of consumer complaints that
the Commission receives. As a result, it is critical that the
Commission stay abreast of new technologies that may impact the privacy
protections afforded to consumers under the TCPA. The Commission thus
proposes and seeks comment on measures designed to ensure that its
rules keep pace with the fast-developing changes in AI technologies. In
so doing, the Commission also seeks to ensure that the Commission's
rules do not hinder the potential benefits that AI technologies can
offer, including making telecommunications more readily accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
AI-Generated Call Definition
2. For purposes of identifying the types of calls that would be
subject to the new rules proposed below, the Commission proposes to
define ``AI generated call'' as ``a call that uses any technology or
tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a text using
computational technology or other machine learning, including
predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process natural
language and produce voice or text content to communicate with a called
party over an outbound telephone call.'' The Commission acknowledges
that AI technologies are evolving quickly and seek comment both on this
proposed definition and on how to best ensure that any definition the
Commission adopt keeps pace with these changes.
3. The Commission believes this definition is consistent with
Federal and state AI definitions cited in the AI NOI, and tailored to
reflect the privacy protections under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codified at 47 U.S.C. 227, by focusing on
AI-generated voice or text calls used to interact with consumers in
outbound telephone calls. For example, the TCPA's prohibition on using
an artificial or prerecorded voice message extends only to outbound
calls that are ``made'' or ``initiated'' by the caller. The TCPA's
requirements do not extend to technologies used to answer inbound
calls. As a result, this definition avoids unintentionally encumbering
uses of AI technologies that consumers never interact with and widely
used existing customer service technologies on inbound calls. In
addition, for the new disclosure that the Commission proposes in the
NPRM to apply to autodialed text messages, the message would first have
to be sent using equipment that meets the definition of an ``automatic
telephone dialing system'' as defined by the TCPA. And second, they
would need to meet the definition of ``AI-generated call'' that the
Commission proposes pursuant to the NPRM.
4. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed definition. Is
this proposed definition suitable for addressing both the potential
benefits and harms raised by AI technology? In other words, does the
proposed definition capture the potentially harmful uses of AI that
consumers would want an opportunity to avoid by having the option to
not get those calls while excluding the positive uses of AI that the
Commission would not want to deter with an express prior consent
requirement? Is the proposed definition overinclusive or
underinclusive? What changes, if any, should the Commission consider in
adopting a definition of AI for these purposes?
5. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is
necessary to define ``AI-generated call'' with specificity, given that
the TCPA expressly covers ``artificial or prerecorded voice,'' and
given that the Commission has already determined that voice cloning and
similar technologies qualify under that statutory phrase. If the
Commission does not define an AI-generated call in this context, how
would callers determine whether the disclosure obligations proposed
below apply to the calls and texts messages that they are sending?
AI-Generated Call Disclosure
6. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on new disclosure
rules that would apply to AI-generated calls. First, The Commission
proposes requiring callers making calls using AI-generated artificial
or prerecorded voice messages to include clear and conspicuous
disclosure that the consumer's consent to receive artificial and
prerecorded calls may include consent to receive AI-generated calls,
defined by the proposal the Commission describes above. Further, the
Commission proposes requiring callers making autodialed text messages
that include AI-generated content to provide clear and conspicuous
disclosure that the consumer's consent to receive such messages may
include consent to receive AI-generated content as defined by the
proposal the Commission describes above. Finally, the Commission also
proposes requiring callers using AI-generated voice to, at the
beginning of each call, clearly disclose to the called party that the
call is using AI-generated technology. The Commission's rules already
require callers to obtain prior express consent from consumers to make
artificial or prerecorded voice calls or autodialed calls absent an
exemption. To facilitate consumers' ability to make an informed
decision to manage unwanted calls, the Commission's rules require that
callers making artificial or prerecorded voice calls disclose, at the
beginning of the message, certain information that would enable the
called party to identify the person or entity initiating the call. For
calls that require the prior express written consent of the called
party and which contain AI-generated messages, the Commission proposes
that the written agreement authorizing delivery of such calls include
clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the called party that they
specifically authorize the caller to make calls containing AI-generated
content.
[[Page 73323]]
7. The Commission seeks comment on requiring additional disclosures
at the point of consent. For calls that already require prior express
consent, would it benefit consumers to require them to provide separate
consent to receive AI-generated calls? The Commission believes that in,
reliance on the Commission's prior express consent framework dating
back several decades, many callers have already captured prior express
consent to place autodialed and/or artificial or prerecorded voice
calls in a manner that comports with the TCPA and the Commission's
current rules. These callers, many of which are large consumer-facing
institutions, rely on these consents at scale to place a large volume
of artificial or prerecorded calls on a daily basis. Given this, should
the Commission's proposed changes to disclosures at the point of
consent apply prospectively only? In other words, should the Commission
grandfather existing consents to place autodialed and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice calls--either indefinitely or for a limited time?
Would doing so minimize operational disruptions to obtain new consent?
In conjunction with the Commission's cost/benefit analysis, the
Commission seeks comment on the burdens that may be entailed by callers
if they are required to disclose to those consumers from whom they
already obtained consent that they intend to use AI-generated calls. To
what extent would any new disclosure requirements, whether or not
applied prospectively, create the risk of unwarranted liability that
callers may face for practices that are currently compliant, but may
not be going forward? Would retroactive changes frustrate consumers
from receiving, and callers from placing, mutually beneficial
communications that are wanted and expected? On the other hand, would
bifurcating consent risk confusing consumers when they receive AI-
generated calls when they believe they withheld consent to receive AI-
generated calls? The Commission also seeks comment on the potential
benefits of such disclosures to those consumers who have already
provided their consent to be called. Would pre-call disclosures that
AI-generated voice is used, as discussed below, mitigate the harm of
receiving ``artificial voice'' calls to which consumers already
consented, but may not wish to receive in the future?
8. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential benefits and
drawbacks of any new disclosures, made at the beginning of each AI-
generated artificial or prerecorded voice call, that AI-generated voice
was used. Would it add value to consumers beyond the current
requirement, which is simply that callers must disclose their identity
when making an artificial voice or prerecorded call, and not
specifically whether the call is an AI-generated call? Would consumers
benefit from new disclosures that apply to ``AI-generated calls,'' but
not to ``artificial or prerecorded voice'' calls outside the new
definition? The Commission notes that its rules do not require pre-call
disclosures about the technology used in artificial or prerecorded
voice calls. Should the Commission consider different approaches that
might better promote greater consumer awareness of AI-generated calls
while minimizing any burdens such disclosures entail for smaller
entities? In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether any
specific categories or usage of AI-generated calls should be excluded
from the pre-call consent or on-call AI-generated disclosure
requirements. For example, the Commission proposes below to create an
exemption for calls made by individuals with disabilities to facilitate
their ability to communicate over the telephone network.
9. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposed
disclosure at the beginning of an AI-generated voice call should
include a special tone, icon, badging, or other indication that is
visual, auditory, or otherwise to the called party. If so, which means
is the most effective and cost efficient to ensure that consumers are
made aware of the use of AI-generated content on the call? Should the
Commission require that callers provide consumers the option to opt out
of AI-generated voice calls if a consumer wishes to continue receiving
non-AI robocalls from a caller? If so, how should the Commission
effectuate such an option in a way that minimizes the risk of abuse by
requiring consumers to make multiple opt-out requests to stop unwanted
calls? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other related
issues in this context.
Promoting Access to Telephone Service by Individuals With Disabilities
10. The Commission propose to exercise its authority under sections
227(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act to exempt from the TCPA's requirements
artificial or prerecorded voice calls made by an individual with a
speech or hearing disability using any technology, including artificial
intelligence technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such
individuals to communicate over the telephone. The Commission does so
to ensure that its protections against AI abuses do not deter
development and use of AI-powered tools that enable people with
disabilities to better use the telephone network. The Commission
emphasizes that its proposed exemptions extend to the use of any
technology that assists individuals with disabilities to communicate by
artificial or prerecorded voice and are not limited to AI technologies.
Consistent with its treatment of certain healthcare-related calls, the
Commission proposes to exempt artificial or prerecorded voice calls
made by individuals with speech and hearing disabilities who are using
AI-generated voice when making an outbound telephone call in order to
assist in communicating with a called party from the TCPA's consent and
identification requirements.
11. It is the Commission's view that this exemption would be
consistent with Congress' and the Commission's emphasis on access to
telecommunications services by persons with disabilities as an
important national policy objective. In 1990, Congress enacted the
Americans with Disabilities Act, which established the
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program. The intent of section
225, which governs telecommunications services for people who have
hearing and speech disabilities, is ``to further the [Communication]
Act's goal of universal service by providing to individuals with
hearing or speech disabilities telephone services that are functionally
equivalent to those provided to individuals without hearing or speech
disabilities.'' In 1996, Congress recognized that, with the nation's
``increasing dependence on telecommunications tools, people with
disabilities remain unable to access many products and services that
are vital to full participation in our society.'' Accordingly, Congress
added section 255 of the Communications Act ``to amend this situation
by bringing the benefits of the telecommunications revolution to all
Americans, including those who face accessibility barriers to
telecommunications products and services.'' In addition, the Commission
has recognized the importance of accessibility, explaining that ``the
federal government must promote innovative and affordable solutions to
ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to
communications services and that they do not bear disproportionate
costs to obtain that access.''
12. As discussed above, section 227(b)(2)(B) authorizes the
Commission to adopt, by rule or order, exemptions
[[Page 73324]]
from the TCPA's requirements for artificial or prerecorded voice calls
to residential telephone lines that are ``not made for a commercial
purpose'' and for ``such classes or categories of calls made for
commercial purposes'' that do not adversely affect the privacy rights
of the called party and do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement.
The Commission tentatively concludes pursuant to both these provisions
that an exemption for the use of AI and other related technologies that
assist individuals with disabilities to communicate by artificial or
prerecorded voice over the telephone to residential telephone lines
would promote the public interest in substantial ways by ensuring that
beneficial uses of these technologies are not impeded by the TCPA's
requirements. Consistent with the statutory requirement, the Commission
also proposes that calls made under this exemption must not contain any
unsolicited advertisement. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
13. Residential Telephone Exemption. Access to telecommunications
services is an increasingly critical tool in our society with
increasing numbers of people using such services to work from home,
learn in educational settings, access healthcare, access government and
emergency services, and keep in touch with family and friends. This is
particularly critical for individuals with disabilities. In addition,
the Commission finds no reason to believe that the privacy interests
that section 227 is designed to protect will be adversely affected by
this limited exemption. For example, the Commission does not expect the
volume of such calls to be significant. Moreover, because such calls
cannot contain unsolicited advertisements, the Commission predicts that
most calls made to residential lines pursuant to this exemption will
primarily be made to individuals who are often expecting them (e.g.,
friends, family). The Commission seeks comment on this view. Would the
proposed exemption benefit persons with disabilities and encourage
development of technologies that assist persons with disabilities in
communicating by telephone? Could the exemption be abused, for example,
by scammers who attempt to use those technologies to defraud or
otherwise harm consumers? If so, how can the Commission modify the
proposal to avoid such abuses?
14. Wireless Exemption. As discussed above, section 227(b)(2)(C)
authorizes the Commission to exempt from this the TCPA's restrictions,
by rule or order, calls to a number assigned to a cellular service
``that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions
as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interests of the
privacy rights. For similar reasons to those discussed above, the
Commission tentatively concludes that the use of AI and other related
technologies that assist individuals with disabilities to communicate
by artificial or prerecorded voice in calls to wireless telephone
numbers should not be impeded by the TCPA's requirements. The
Commission therefore proposes to exempt such calls pursuant to the
condition that they must not contain any telemarketing or
advertisement. The Commission believes that compliance with this
condition would not unduly impair the ability of individuals with
disabilities to use the telephone network or impose burdensome
compliance obligations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
15. The statute requires that any calls to wireless telephone
numbers that are exempted from the TCPA's restrictions be ``not charged
to the called party.'' The Commission seeks comment on how this
condition can be satisfied in the Commission's proposal. The Commission
believes that it is unreasonable to expect individuals with
disabilities to ascertain in every instance whether the called party is
charged for an incoming call. As noted above, the TCPA authorizes the
Commission to ``prescribe technical and procedural standards for
systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice
message via telephone.'' Could the Commission require or encourage
wireless providers and others under this or other authority to ensure
that these calls are not charged to the called party? Are there other
alternative solutions that the Commission should consider? The
Commission has concluded that the TCPA's ``not charged'' requirement
precludes exempting incoming calls that count against the recipient's
allotted minutes or texts. Given the substantial public interest
considerations, should the Commission take a different view in this
context? To what extent is the ``not charged to the called party''
condition a practical impediment to the use of the exemption in the
current wireless marketplace? For example, to what extent are wireless
consumers still charged for incoming calls? The Commission seeks
comment on these and any other considerations relevant to its proposal.
16. TRACED Act. The Commission tentatively concludes that the
exemptions discussed above satisfy the relevant provisions of the
TRACED Act. Section 8 of the TRACED Act amended section 227(b)(2) of
the Communications Act to require that the Commission ensure that any
exemption granted under sections 227(b)(2)(B) or (C) allowing callers
to make artificial voice, prerecorded voice, or autodialed calls
without consent include certain conditions. Specifically, section 8
requires that any such exemption contain requirements with respect to:
``(i) the classes of parties that may make such calls; (ii) the classes
of parties that may be called; and (iii) the number of such calls that
a calling party may make to a particular called party.''
17. The Commission proposes that the ``class of parties that may
make such calls'' under the exemption is any individual with a speech
or hearing disability that utilizes an AI or other technology to assist
in communicating by artificial or prerecorded voice over the telephone.
The Commission believes this class of individuals is sufficiently
clear. The Commission seeks comment on whether it needs to broaden this
class of parties to ensure that the Commission encompasses any other
individuals with disabilities who make use of artificial or prerecorded
voice technologies to communicate over the telephone. If so, how should
the Commission define this class of parties? At this time, the
Commission will not require that individuals demonstrate proof of such
a disability, because the Commission finds that such a requirement
would be potentially burdensome and a potential privacy invasion given
the lack of any basis at this time to conclude that there are grounds
for abuse. The Commission proposes that ``the classes of parties that
may be called'' in this instance extends to calls made to parties for
purposes that do not include unsolicited advertising or telemarketing.
In this instance, the public policy goal of ensuring that individuals
with disabilities are not encumbered with any impediments from
telephone usage exceeds any concern regarding adverse privacy risks,
which seem to be minimal in this context. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
18. Lastly, the Commission tentatively concludes that limiting such
calls to those that do not include unsolicited telemarketing
establishes a functional limit on the number of such calls made in this
context (i.e., individuals with hearing or speech disabilities
utilizing artificial or prerecorded voice technologies on calls in
which they are present and communicating) that is consistent with the
objectives of promoting access to telephone service
[[Page 73325]]
by individuals with disabilities. The Commission tentatively concludes
that ``the number of such calls that a calling party may make'' should
not be a specific numerical limitation in this context because such a
limitation would risk depriving individuals with disabilities of basic
access to telephone service while necessitating that they track the
number of such calls that they are making each day, an outcome
inconsistent with national policy objectives and laws designed to
promote such usage.
19. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions,
including any alternative means to satisfy the TRACED Act's
requirements in a way that promotes access to telephone service without
unduly burdening individuals with disabilities.
20. Alternatives. As an alternative to creating an exemption for
artificial or prerecorded voice calls made by an individual with a
speech or hearing disability using any technology, including artificial
intelligence technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such
individuals to communicate over the telephone, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it can define ``artificial or prerecorded voice'' in
a way that excludes from the requirements of the TCPA the use of
technologies that are designed to assist individuals with disabilities
to communicate by voice over the telephone network. The Commission
notes that the TCPA does not define the terms ``artificial'' or
``prerecorded voice.'' As a result, can the Commission define those
terms in a way that would allow these types of calls by individuals
with disabilities?
21. In addition, do the Commission's obligations to ensure that
telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment
be accessible and usable by people with disabilities authorize us to
exclude positive uses of AI and other technologies that benefit
individuals with disabilities from the TCPA's restrictions on the use
of artificial or prerecorded voice messages? How would the Commission
reconcile such an approach with the Commission's prior rulings in the
Soundboard Declaratory Ruling confirming that the presence of a live
agent on a call selecting the prerecorded messages to be played ``does
not negate the clear statutory prohibition against initiating a call
using a prerecorded or artificial voice'' and the AI Declaratory Ruling
in which the Commission found that AI and other technologies that
generate human voices fall within the TCPA. How could the Commission
ensure any such approach does not create a loophole that could be used
by telemarketers or bad actors to circumvent the TCPA's protections?
The Commission seeks comment on these and other alternatives that might
assist us in formulating a means to ensure that the TCPA's restrictions
on robocalls do not inadvertently impede the ability of individuals
with disabilities to use the telephone network.
Costs and Benefits
22. The Commission seeks comment on the potential costs and
benefits of taking any of its proposed regulatory measures to address
the use of AI technologies. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment
on whether and to what degree the changes the Commission proposes here
will improve consumers' ability to identify, manage, and benefit from
the use of calls that contain AI-generated voices. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on any potential costs of its proposals on
callers, including smaller entities, to disclose the use of AI-
generated technologies and honor requests not to make such calls to
consumers who do not provide consent. The Commission seeks comment on
these and any other considerations that may shed light on the potential
costs and benefits of adopting its proposals.
Legal Authority
23. TCPA. The Commission tentatively concludes that section 227
provides us with legal authority to adopt the proposals. As noted
above, the TCPA authorizes the Commission to make ``technical and
procedural standards for systems that are used to transmit any
artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone.'' In addition,
the legislative history contemplated the Commission's need for the
flexibility to address future technologies that impact the TCPA's
consumer privacy protections from unwanted robocalls.
24. The TCPA also prohibits the use of an artificial or prerecorded
voice message in calls to a residential or wireless telephone number
absent the prior express consent of the called party or a recognized
exemption. The Commission has recently confirmed that the TCPA's
restrictions on the use of ``artificial or prerecorded voice''
encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices and/or
generate call content using a prerecorded voice. As a result, the
Commission believes that the proposals set forth herein to disclose the
use of AI-generated calls and exempt individuals with disabilities from
the TCPA's prohibitions on artificial or prerecorded voice calls are
authorized by the TCPA. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion including whether any other legal authorities such as those
that govern the provision of communications services to individuals
with disabilities may lend additional support to its tentative
conclusion. Alternatively, is there any reason to conclude that these
existing legal authorities do not provide the Commission with
sufficient statutory authority to ensure that the use of emerging AI
technologies, as the Commission proposes to define it, does not erode
consumer protections under the TCPA?
Digital Equity and Inclusion
25. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with our proposals. Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on how its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of
the Commission's relevant legal authority.
Notice of Inquiry
Real-Time Call Detection, Call Alerting, and Call Blocking Technologies
26. The Commission seeks comment on the development and
availability of technologies on either the device or network level that
can: (1) detect incoming calls that are potentially fraudulent and/or
AI-generated based on real time analysis of voice call content; (2)
alert consumers to the potential that such voice calls are fraudulent
and/or AI-generated; and (3) potentially block future voice calls that
can be identified as similar AI-generated or otherwise fraudulent voice
calls based on analytics. Specifically, what steps can the Commission
take to encourage the development and deployment of these technologies,
including to consumers regardless of their economic means or the type
of telephone service to which they subscribe? Further, the Commission
seeks comment on the privacy implications of call detection
technologies that analyze the content of calls in real time to identify
calls that are potentially fraudulent and/or feature AI-generated voice
without the required
[[Page 73326]]
disclosure proposed above. To that end, the Commission asks whether the
Commission should adopt rules governing the use of call detection,
alerting, or blocking technologies to protect the privacy of both
callers and called parties.
27. The record highlights several examples of call detection and
alerting technologies that can help detect scam calls or calls that use
AI-generated voice based on real time content analysis of the incoming
call. For example, Google announced it is ``testing a new call
monitoring feature that will warn users if the person they're talking
to is likely attempting to scam them and encourage them to end such
calls.'' This technology will ``utilize Gemini Nano--a reduced version
of the company's Gemini large language model for Android devices that
can run locally and offline--to look for fraudulent language and other
conversation patterns typically associated with scams. Users will
receive real-time alerts during calls where these red flags are
present.'' Other technologies under development seek to authenticate
human voice as a method of thwarting calls featuring AI-generated
voices, such as scam calls that do not disclose the use of AI. For
example, OriginStory states it is developing a new technique that
``authenticates the human origin of voice recordings at the point of
creation and then embeds this authentication as a watermark or
signature in the stream, establishing a chain of trust from the moment
the voice is captured to when it reaches the listener.'' Microsoft's
Azure Operator Call Protection is a data-based service offered to
telephone service providers at the network level that ``detects
potential phone scams, performs real-time AI-driven analysis of
consumer phone calls, and alerts subscribers when they are at risk of
being scammed.'' The same technologies capable of detecting scam calls
or calls using AI-generated voice could potentially be programmed to
block future calls that can be identified as similar based on
analytics. How far along are these and similar technologies in
development? Have they proven useful in protecting consumers? Are there
other examples of these kinds of technologies in existence today or in
development, including any capable of detecting AI-generated voice? To
ensure that providers do not interfere with consumer privacy rights as
part of AI detection efforts, the Commission emphasizes that they must
continue to comply with existing Federal and state laws regarding
lawful interception, including the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act (ECPA), and that nothing discussed herein proposes to alter any
prohibitions under existing statutes.
28. Should the Commission act to further the development and
deployment of such technologies? Are there legal, technical, and/or
practical barriers to wide-scale deployment and adoption of such
applications? Does the Commission have the statutory authority and
technical expertise to address these barriers? To what extent do these
technologies duplicate or complement STIR/SHAKEN and other caller ID
authentication solutions? How do issues regarding IP interconnection
across voice service networks impact the ability of providers to enable
real-time monitoring of voice traffic using AI technologies? Will
technologies that enable real-time monitoring of voice traffic require
service providers to upgrade their network infrastructure? If so, how
long and at what cost will it take providers to upgrade their networks?
Do these technologies require new devices at potentially greater cost
to consumers? Will these detection and alerting technologies be
provided to consumers at an additional cost, thereby increasing the
overall cost of voice services to consumers? How can the Commission
ensure the benefits of these technologies are available to all
consumers, including across the various mobile telephone platforms, as
well as on landlines? For example, how do these technologies monitor
robocalls in languages other than English? Should these technologies
monitor languages based on population, subscriber preference, Census
data, or some other appropriate metric? What role should industry
standards play in the development and implementation of call detection
technologies that analyze call content in real time such as those
discussed above? Do these technologies risk blocking or inhibiting
legitimate AI-generated calls, such as public safety calls, calls from
people with disabilities using AI-enabled services, or other exempted
calls? If so, how will they mitigate the inadvertent blocking of such
calls and messages?
Privacy Implications of Real-Time Call Detection, Call Alerting, and
Call Blocking Technologies
29. While the AI-enabled call detection, alerting, and blocking
technologies discussed above promise to be effective tools in
protecting consumers from unwanted calls, including scam calls, the
Commission believes that these tools pose significant privacy risks,
insofar as they appear to rely on analysis and processing of the
content of calls--which are very sensitive data--by application or
device providers, who already have access to the personally
identifiable information (PII) of their users. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on the privacy implications of call detection,
alerting, and blocking technologies. The Commission also seeks comment
on whether Commission should consider requirements to protect the
privacy of callers and called parties, and, if so, what such
requirements should be. If the Commission adopts privacy requirements
in this area, should the Commission rely on notice-and-consent
principles, or should the Commission instead adopt substantive
protections such as minimization requirements for data collection,
purpose limitations for data processing, and categorical restrictions
on sharing and disclosure?
30. The Commission first seeks comment on how these technologies
capture and analyze call content data and on any steps that developers
and users of these tools can use or are already using to protect the
privacy of both callers and called parties. How do these systems
process call content data? Do these systems store call data on the
device or at the network level? If so, for how long? Do these
applications anonymize data while the data are being analyzed? How do
they store such data, and do they share it with third parties? If they
do share such data, for what purposes, and how do they ensure that
third parties cannot use the data for extraneous or unrelated
commercial purposes? Do providers of these technologies and
applications make their data practices clear to consumers? Do they
provide notice to the caller and rely on opt-out or opt-in consent,
prior to their initiation? Do they provide notice and enable consent to
called parties? The Commission also seeks comment on what rights are
afforded to consumers with respect to any data collected? Can consumers
view those data? Correct those data? Request destruction of those data?
Are the data portable? Do these systems ensure malicious actors cannot
access these data? To what purposes do entities that offer these
applications and technologies currently process any data they collect?
What are the valid or reasonably related purposes to which such
entities should be permitted to process the collected data?
31. The Commission also seeks comment on what Federal and state
privacy laws already apply to the use of call detection, alerting, and
blocking technologies, including the ECPA and state wiretapping and
interception laws?
[[Page 73327]]
Do these laws address the privacy concerns identified above?
32. To the extent commenters do not think that provider practices
or existing laws are sufficient, the Commission next seeks comment on
whether and how the Commission should address the privacy concerns
discussed above. Starting with the traditional privacy principles of
notice and consent, should the Commission adopt a rule requiring
consent of the called party prior to analyzing any incoming calls?
Should the caller be afforded notice and consent? If so, would this
potentially frustrate the benefits of call detection, alerting, and
blocking technologies, by allowing malicious actors to effectively veto
their use? If not, what protections exist for non-malicious callers who
have a legitimate privacy interest in not having the contents of their
calls collected and processed by unknown third parties? What level of
consent is appropriate for the called party and, to the extent
applicable, the caller?
33. The Commission also seeks comment on whether substantive
privacy protections might be more appropriate in this area than notice
and consent requirements. For example, should the Commission adopt
rules that prohibit or limit to some degree any technology or
application that analyzes the content of calls in real time from: (1)
recording the content of the call; (2) retaining a transcript,
recording, or meta data associated with the call; (3) disclosing the
content of the call to any person or other party; and/or (4) using the
analysis of the call for any other purpose than determining whether to
identify and alert the recipient that a call is likely to be fraudulent
or AI-generated? The Commission believes that rules such as these would
be consistent with the privacy protections that parties developing AI-
enabled call analytic systems acknowledge are required under existing
Federal law. Would such rules help prevent unscrupulous purveyors of
similar call detection applications from violating consumers' privacy
while also creating an additional layer of protection against privacy
violations by virtue of the Commission's rulemaking and enforcement
authority? How could the Commission craft such rules to ensure that
they protect consumer privacy without disrupting existing services that
combat robocalls? For example, would consent-based exemptions
accomplish this goal?
34. The Commission also seeks comment on how developers train the
large language models that aid in call detection, alerting, and
blocking technologies. What data sets do developers use to train the
large model, and do they include call data? How do these applications
ensure compliance with Federal and state wiretap laws, including states
with two-party consent requirements? Should the Commission require
standards to limit the use of personal information for training AI
models used for call content analysis?
35. As the Commission considers the necessity of such rules
discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
Communications Act grants the Commission the authority to adopt rules
regarding the implementation of any AI-enabled call detection,
alerting, or blocking technologies, including by adopting specific
requirements to protect subscribers' privacy. Section 227(c) of the
Communications Act directs the Commission to ``protect residential
telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone
solicitations to which they object.'' To do this, the Act directs the
Commission ``to compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures
(including the use of electronic databases, telephone network
technologies, special directory markings, industry-based or company-
specific `do not call' systems, and any other alternatives,
individually or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting
such privacy right.''
36. Finally, the Act directs the Commission to ``develop proposed
regulations to implement the methods and procedures that the Commission
determines are most effective and efficient to accomplish the purposes
of this section.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the call
detection, alerting, and blocking technologies the Commission discusses
constitute both a telephone network technology and an alternative
method identified by the Commission that protects subscriber's privacy
rights to avoid receiving objectionable telephone solicitations. Does
the Commission have the authority to develop regulations related to the
methods and procedures for the implementation of any AI-enabled call
detection, alerting, and blocking technologies?
Other
37. NIST AI Risk Management Framework. On January 26, 2023, the
U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) released the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI
RMF) ``to offer a resource to the organizations designing, developing,
deploying, or using AI systems to help manage the many risks of AI and
promote trustworthy and responsible development and use of AI
systems.'' The Commission seeks comment on how this framework could
further the Commission's understanding related to the risks surrounding
the use of AI technologies to combat unwanted and fraudulent calls.
Procedural Matters
38. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by the PRA. In addition, 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 the Commission
might further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
39. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM. The IRFA is set
forth in this document. The Commission invites the general public, in
particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be
filed by the deadlines for comments in the DATES section of this
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them
as responses to the IRFA.
40. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in
[[Page 73328]]
the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.
1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's
ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (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 the NPRM. 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 NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
42. The Commission initiates this proceeding to protect consumers
from unwanted robocalls by proposing rules to address the emerging use
of AI technologies to ensure that consumers continue to receive the
protections afforded under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The TCPA sets forth specific requirements relating to the use
of artificial and prerecorded voice messages in telephone calls. As the
use of AI-generated calls becomes increasingly prevalent, it is
critical that the Commission's rules ensure that consumer privacy is
not eroded by the use of these emerging technologies. The proposed
rules are therefore designed to ensure that the Commission's rules keep
pace with technological changes while not impeding the beneficial uses
of AI technologies. Specifically, the Commission proposes to define AI-
generated calls to ensure that consumers know when they receive an AI-
generated call; to adopt protections for consumers to ensure that
callers adequately apprise them of their potential use of AI-generated
calls when consumers consent to receive such calls; and to ensure that
positive uses of AI that assist people with disabilities to use the
telephone network can thrive without threat of TCPA liability.
Legal Basis
43. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4,
225, 227, 255, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 225, 227, 255, and 403.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
44. 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.
45. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. We, 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 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2
million businesses.
46. 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 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 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.
47. 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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that
at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
48. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including voice
over internet protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By
exception,
[[Page 73329]]
establishments providing satellite television distribution services
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in
this industry Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as
wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
49. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
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.
50. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with an 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.
51. 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 $25.5 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.
52. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and
data communications equipment. These products may be stand-alone or
board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by
these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless
and wire telephones (except cellular), private branch exchange (PBX)
equipment, telephone answering machines, local area network (LAN)
modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment,
such as bridges, routers, and gateways. The SBA small business size
standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing classifies businesses
having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 189 firms in this industry that operated for
the entire year. Of this number, 177 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in
this industry can be considered small.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
53. The NPRM seeks comment on issues that may alter the
Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping,
or compliance requirements for small entities. Specifically, the NPRM
proposes and seeks comment on how to define AI in a way that is
relevant to fulfilling the Commission's statutory responsibilities
under the TCPA, requiring callers to disclose when a caller uses an AI-
generated voice, removing impediments to beneficial uses of AI to
promote access to telephone service by individuals with disabilities,
and requests information on additional call blocking and call alerting
technologies that can assist consumers in avoiding unwanted AI-
generated calls or scams, including whether the Commission should
require specific language for the disclosure, or audio-visual prompts
that indicate an AI-generated voice is being used. Affected small
entities may need to alter existing calling practices when making calls
that contain an AI-generated voice to disclose to the called party that
the call is using an AI-generated technology. Measures may have to be
taken by small telecommunications providers or equipment makers to
ensure that individuals with disabilities can use technologies to make
calls that contain artificial or prerecorded voices without running
afoul of the TCPA.
54. The Commission invites comment on the costs and burdens of the
proposals in the NPRM that may impact small entity callers. The
Commission expects the information received in comments, including,
where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission
identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities
that may result if the proposals and associated requirements discussed
in the NPRM are ultimately adopted.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
55. 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 and
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.
56. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several
alternatives considered that may impact small entities. For example,
the Commission proposes that callers disclose when a caller uses an AI-
generated voice on a call but seek comment on whether certain usage or
categories of calls that contain AI-generated voice messages should be
excluded from this requirement. This would avoid placing certain
compliance burdens on small entity callers to make such disclosures,
and minimize some economic impact for these entities. The Commission
also seeks comment on alternative definitions of AI in this context to
ensure that the scope of calls that fall under that definition is
consistent with the privacy protections afforded under
[[Page 73330]]
the TCPA and whether it may inadvertently encumber technologies that do
not fall within the TCPA. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether
there are ways in which the telecommunications industry might assist to
ensure that calls made by individuals with disabilities under the
proposed exemption do not run afoul of the condition that such calls
not be charged to the called party. The Commission seeks comment on
alternative ways to accomplish this objective including voluntary
efforts by industry or equipment manufacturers.
57. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic
impact and alternatives for small entities following review of comments
and costs and benefits analysis filed in response to the NPRM. The
Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any
final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
58. None.
Ordering Clauses
59. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 225, 227,
255, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151-154, 227, 255, and 403 that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Notice of Inquiry is hereby Adopted.
60. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry on or before 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 45
days after publication in the Federal Register.
61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of
Secretary, shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment,
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 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, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
Subpart L--Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation,
and Facsimile Advertising
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.1200 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3)(iv);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(3)(v) and adding ``;
or'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(9)(v), and (a)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
e. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (f)(9)(i)(A);
0
f. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (f)(9)(i)(B) and adding
``; and'' in its place; and
0
g. Adding paragraphs (f)(9)(i)(C) and (f)(20).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 64.1200 Delivery restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(vi) Is made by an individual with a speech or hearing disability
using any technology, including artificial intelligence technologies,
designed to facilitate the ability of such individuals to communicate
using an artificial or prerecorded voice over the telephone and does
not include or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing.
* * * * *
(9) * * *
(v) Calls made by individuals with speech or hearing disabilities
using any technology, including artificial intelligence (AI)
technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such individuals to
communicate using an artificial or prerecorded voice over the
telephone, provided that the calls must not include any telemarketing
or advertising content.
* * * * *
(13) Callers making an AI-generated call subject to the
requirements contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section
must provide clear and conspicuous disclosure that they intend to use
AI-generated voice or text content on such calls when obtaining the
prior express consent of the called party.
(b) * * *
(1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of
the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for
initiating the call, and disclose whether the call uses an artificial
intelligence-generated voice. If a business is responsible for
initiating the call, the name under which the entity is registered to
conduct business with the State Corporation Commission (or comparable
regulatory authority) must be stated;
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(9) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) For AI-generated calls, that the caller intends to make use of
AI-technology to generate voice or text content and the person signing
the agreement specifically agrees to receive calls that include AI-
generated content.
* * * * *
(20) The term AI-generated call means a call that uses any
technology or tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a
text using computational technology or other machine learning,
including predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process
natural language and produce voice or text content to communicate with
a called party over an outbound telephone call.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-19028 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P