    [United States Statutes at Large, Volume 133, 116th Congress, 1st Session]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    Public Law 116-105
    116th Congress

    An Act

    To deter criminal robocall violations and improve enforcement of section
    227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other
    purposes. <>

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled, <>
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall
    Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act'' or the ``Pallone-Thune
    TRACED Act''.
    SEC. 2. <>  COMMISSION DEFINED.

    In this Act, the term ``Commission'' means the Federal
    Communications Commission.
    SEC. 3. FORFEITURE.

    (a) In General.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
    U.S.C. 227) is amended--
    (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) Civil forfeiture.--
    ``(A) In general.--Any person that is determined by
    the Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4)
    of section 503(b), to have violated this subsection
    shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty pursuant to section 503(b)(1). Paragraph (5) of
    section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of a
    violation of this subsection. A forfeiture penalty under
    this subparagraph shall be in addition to any other
    penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of the
    forfeiture <>  penalty determined
    under this subparagraph shall be determined in
    accordance with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section
    503(b)(2).
    ``(B) Violation with intent.--Any person that is
    determined by the Commission, in accordance with
    paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b), to have violated
    this subsection with the intent to cause such violation
    shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty pursuant to section 503(b)(1). Paragraph (5) of
    section 503(b) shall not apply in the case of a
    violation of this subsection. A forfeiture penalty under
    this subparagraph shall be in addition to any other
    penalty provided for by this Act. The amount of the
    forfeiture penalty determined under this subparagraph
    shall be equal to an amount determined in accordance
    with subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 503(b)(2)
    plus an additional penalty not to exceed $10,000.

    [[Page 3275]]

    ``(C) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined
    under subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be recoverable under
    section 504(a).
    ``(D) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
    determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) against any
    person unless such person receives the notice required
    by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4).
    ``(E) Statute of limitations.--Notwithstanding
    paragraph (6) of section 503(b), no forfeiture penalty
    shall be determined or imposed against any person--
    ``(i) under subparagraph (A) if the violation
    charged occurred more than 1 year prior to the
    date of issuance of the required notice or notice
    of apparent liability; or
    ``(ii) under subparagraph (B) if the violation
    charged occurred more than 4 years prior to the
    date of issuance of the required notice or notice
    of apparent liability.
    ``(F) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any law
    to the contrary, the Commission may not determine or
    impose a forfeiture penalty on a person under both
    subparagraphs (A) and (B) based on the same conduct.'';
    (2) in subsection (e)(5)(A)--
    (A) in clause (ii), by adding at the end the
    following: ``Paragraph (5) of section 503(b) shall not
    apply in the case of a violation of this subsection.'';
    and
    (B) in clause (iv)--
    (i) in the heading, by striking ``2-year'' and
    inserting ``4-year''; and
    (ii) by striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``4
    years''; and
    (3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:

    ``(h) Annual Report to Congress on Robocalls and Transmission of
    Misleading or Inaccurate Caller Identification Information.--
    ``(1) Report required.--Not later than 1 year after the date
    of the enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter,
    the Commission, after consultation with the Federal Trade
    Commission, shall submit to Congress a report regarding
    enforcement by the Commission of subsections (b), (c), (d), and
    (e) during the preceding calendar year.
    ``(2) <>  Matters for inclusion.--Each
    report required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
    ``(A) The number of complaints received by the
    Commission during each of the preceding 5 calendar
    years, for each of the following categories:
    ``(i) Complaints alleging that a consumer
    received a call in violation of subsection (b) or
    (c).
    ``(ii) Complaints alleging that a consumer
    received a call in violation of the standards
    prescribed under subsection (d).
    ``(iii) Complaints alleging that a consumer
    received a call in connection with which
    misleading or inaccurate caller identification
    information was transmitted in violation of
    subsection (e).
    ``(B) The number of citations issued by the
    Commission pursuant to section 503(b) during the
    preceding calendar

    [[Page 3276]]

    year to enforce subsection (d), and details of each such
    citation.
    ``(C) The number of notices of apparent liability
    issued by the Commission pursuant to section 503(b)
    during the preceding calendar year to enforce
    subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e), and details of each
    such notice including any proposed forfeiture amount.
    ``(D) The number of final orders imposing forfeiture
    penalties issued pursuant to section 503(b) during the
    preceding calendar year to enforce such subsections, and
    details of each such order including the forfeiture
    imposed.
    ``(E) The amount of forfeiture penalties or criminal
    fines collected, during the preceding calendar year, by
    the Commission or the Attorney General for violations of
    such subsections, and details of each case in which such
    a forfeiture penalty or criminal fine was collected.
    ``(F) <>  Proposals for reducing
    the number of calls made in violation of such
    subsections.
    ``(G) <>  An
    analysis of the contribution by providers of
    interconnected VoIP service and non-interconnected VoIP
    service that discount high-volume, unlawful, short-
    duration calls to the total number of calls made in
    violation of such subsections, and recommendations on
    how to address such contribution in order to decrease
    the total number of calls made in violation of such
    subsections.
    ``(3) No additional reporting required.--The Commission
    shall prepare the report required by paragraph (1) without
    requiring the provision of additional information from providers
    of telecommunications service or voice service (as defined in
    section 4(a) of the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act).''.

    (b) <>  Applicability.--The amendments made
    by this section shall not affect any action or proceeding commenced
    before and pending on the date of the enactment of this Act.

    (c) <>  Deadline for Regulations.--The
    Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made
    by this section not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment
    of this Act.
    SEC. 4. <>  CALL AUTHENTICATION.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
    (1) STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework.--The term ``STIR/
    SHAKEN authentication framework'' means the secure telephone
    identity revisited and signature-based handling of asserted
    information using tokens standards proposed by the information
    and communications technology industry.
    (2) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
    (A) means any service that is interconnected with
    the public switched telephone network and that furnishes
    voice communications to an end user using resources from
    the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to
    the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
    Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications
    Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
    (B) includes--
    (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile
    machine, computer, or other device to a telephone
    facsimile machine; and

    [[Page 3277]]

    (ii) without limitation, any service that
    enables real-time, two-way voice communications,
    including any service that requires internet
    protocol-compatible customer premises equipment
    (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound
    calling, whether or not the service is one-way or
    two-way voice over internet protocol.

    (b) Authentication Frameworks.--
    (1) <>  In general.--Subject
    to paragraphs (2) and (3), and in accordance with paragraph (6),
    not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
    Act, the Commission shall--
    (A) require a provider of voice service to implement
    the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the internet
    protocol networks of the provider of voice service; and
    (B) require a provider of voice service to take
    reasonable measures to implement an effective call
    authentication framework in the non-internet protocol
    networks of the provider of voice service.
    (2) <>  Implementation.--The
    Commission shall not take the action described in paragraph (1)
    with respect to a provider of voice service if the Commission
    determines, not later than 12 months after the date of the
    enactment of this Act, that such provider of voice service--
    (A) in internet protocol networks--
    (i) has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
    framework for calls on the internet protocol
    networks of the provider of voice service;
    (ii) has agreed voluntarily to participate
    with other providers of voice service in the STIR/
    SHAKEN authentication framework;
    (iii) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN
    authentication framework; and
    (iv) <>  will be capable of
    fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
    framework not later than 18 months after the date
    of the enactment of this Act; and
    (B) in non-internet protocol networks--
    (i) has taken reasonable measures to implement
    an effective call authentication framework; and
    (ii) will be capable of fully implementing an
    effective call authentication framework not later
    than 18 months after the date of the enactment of
    this Act.
    (3) Implementation report.--Not later than 12 months after
    the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
    submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
    Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation of the Senate a report on the determination
    required under paragraph (2), which shall include--
    (A) <>  an analysis of the extent
    to which providers of voice service have implemented the
    call authentication frameworks described in
    subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1), including
    whether the availability of necessary equipment and
    equipment upgrades has impacted such implementation; and

    [[Page 3278]]

    (B) <>  an assessment of the
    efficacy of the call authentication frameworks described
    in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) in
    addressing all aspects of call authentication.
    (4) <>
    Review and revision or replacement.--Not later than 3 years
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 3 years
    thereafter, the Commission, after public notice and an
    opportunity for comment, shall--
    (A) <>  assess the efficacy of
    the technologies used for call authentication frameworks
    implemented under this section;
    (B) <>  based on the
    assessment under subparagraph (A), revise or replace the
    call authentication frameworks under this section if the
    Commission determines it is in the public interest to do
    so; and
    (C) <>  submit to the Committee on
    Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
    the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    of the Senate a report on the findings of the assessment
    under subparagraph (A) and on any actions to revise or
    replace the call authentication frameworks under
    subparagraph (B).
    (5) Extension of implementation deadline.--
    (A) Burdens and barriers to implementation.--Not
    later than 12 months after the date of the enactment of
    this Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the
    Commission--
    (i) <>  shall assess any
    burdens or barriers to the implementation required
    by paragraph (1), including--
    (I) for providers of voice service
    to the extent the networks of such
    providers use time-division
    multiplexing;
    (II) for small providers of voice
    service and those in rural areas; and
    (III) the inability to purchase or
    upgrade equipment to support the call
    authentication frameworks under this
    section, or lack of availability of such
    equipment; and
    (ii) in connection with an assessment under
    clause (i), may, upon a public finding of undue
    hardship, delay required compliance with the 18-
    month time period described in paragraph (1), for
    a reasonable period of time, for a provider or
    class of providers of voice service, or type of
    voice calls, as necessary for that provider or
    class of providers or type of calls to participate
    in the implementation in order to address the
    identified burdens and barriers.
    (B) Delay of compliance required for certain non-
    internet protocol networks.--Subject to subparagraphs
    (C) through (F), for any provider or class of providers
    of voice service, or type of voice calls, only to the
    extent that such a provider or class of providers of
    voice service, or type of voice calls, materially relies
    on a non-internet protocol network for the provision of
    such service or calls, the Commission shall grant a
    delay of required compliance under subparagraph (A)(ii)
    until a call authentication protocol has been developed
    for calls delivered over non-internet protocol networks
    and is reasonably available.

    [[Page 3279]]

    (C) Robocall mitigation program.--
    (i) Program required.--During the time of a
    delay of compliance granted under subparagraph
    (A)(ii), the Commission shall require, pursuant to
    the authority of the Commission, that any provider
    subject to such delay shall implement an
    appropriate robocall mitigation program to prevent
    unlawful robocalls from originating on the network
    of the provider.
    (ii) Additional requirements.--If the
    consortium registered under section 13(d)
    identifies a provider of voice service that is
    subject to a delay of compliance granted under
    subparagraph (A)(ii) as repeatedly originating
    large-scale unlawful robocall campaigns, the
    Commission shall require such provider to take
    action to ensure that such provider does not
    continue to originate such calls.
    (iii) Minimization of burden.--The Commission
    shall make reasonable efforts to minimize the
    burden of any robocall mitigation required
    pursuant to clause (ii), which may include
    prescribing certain specific robocall mitigation
    practices for providers of voice service that have
    repeatedly originated large-scale unlawful
    robocall campaigns.
    (D) Full participation.--The Commission shall take
    reasonable measures to address any issues in an
    assessment under subparagraph (A)(i) and enable as
    promptly as reasonable full participation of all classes
    of providers of voice service and types of voice calls
    to receive the highest level of
    trust. <> Such measures shall
    include, without limitation, as appropriate, limiting or
    terminating a delay of compliance granted to a provider
    under subparagraph (B) if the Commission determines in
    such assessment that the provider is not making
    reasonable efforts to develop the call authentication
    protocol described in such subparagraph.
    (E) <>  Alternative
    methodologies.--The Commission shall identify, in
    consultation with small providers of voice service and
    those in rural areas, alternative effective
    methodologies to protect customers from unauthenticated
    calls during any delay of compliance granted under
    subparagraph (A)(ii).
    (F) <>  Revision of delay of
    compliance.--Not less frequently than annually after the
    first delay of compliance is granted under subparagraph
    (A)(ii), the Commission--
    (i) shall consider revising or extending any
    delay of compliance granted under subparagraph
    (A)(ii);
    (ii) may revise such delay of compliance; and
    (iii) <>  shall
    issue a public notice with regard to whether such
    delay of compliance remains necessary, including--
    (I) why such delay of compliance
    remains necessary; and
    (II) when the Commission expects to
    achieve the goal of full participation
    as described in subparagraph (D).
    (6) No additional cost to consumers or small business
    customers.--The Commission shall prohibit providers of voice

    [[Page 3280]]

    service from adding any additional line item charges to consumer
    or small business customer subscribers for the effective call
    authentication technology required under paragraph (1).
    (7) <>  Accurate identification.--Not later
    than 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
    Commission shall issue best practices that providers of voice
    service may use as part of the implementation of effective call
    authentication frameworks under paragraph (1) to take steps to
    ensure the calling party is accurately identified.

    (c) Safe Harbor and Other Regulations.--
    (1) <>  In general.--Consistent with the
    regulations prescribed under subsection (j) of section 227 of
    the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by
    section 10, the Commission shall, not later than 1 year after
    the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate rules--
    (A) establishing when a provider of voice service
    may block a voice call based, in whole or in part, on
    information provided by the call authentication
    frameworks under subsection (b), with no additional line
    item charge;
    (B) establishing a safe harbor for a provider of
    voice service from liability for unintended or
    inadvertent blocking of calls or for the unintended or
    inadvertent misidentification of the level of trust for
    individual calls based, in whole or in part, on
    information provided by the call authentication
    frameworks under subsection (b);
    (C) establishing a process to permit a calling party
    adversely affected by the information provided by the
    call authentication frameworks under subsection (b) to
    verify the authenticity of the calling party's calls;
    and
    (D) ensuring that calls originating from a provider
    of voice service in an area where the provider is
    subject to a delay of compliance with the time period
    described in subsection (b)(1) are not unreasonably
    blocked because the calls are not able to be
    authenticated.
    (2) Considerations.--In establishing the safe harbor under
    paragraph (1), consistent with the regulations prescribed under
    subsection (j) of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934
    (47 U.S.C. 227), as added by section 10, the Commission shall
    consider limiting the liability of a provider of voice service
    based on the extent to which the provider of voice service--
    (A) blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or in
    part, on the information provided by the call
    authentication frameworks under subsection (b);
    (B) implemented procedures based, in whole or in
    part, on the information provided by the call
    authentication frameworks under subsection (b); and
    (C) used reasonable care, including making all
    reasonable efforts to avoid blocking emergency public
    safety calls.

    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall preclude
    the Commission from initiating a rulemaking pursuant to its existing
    statutory authority.
    SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.

    (a) <>  In General.--The Attorney
    General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission, shall
    convene an interagency working group to study Government prosecution of
    violations of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
    U.S.C. 227(b)).

    [[Page 3281]]

    (b) Duties.--In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the
    interagency working group shall--
    (1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal laws,
    including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary or
    jurisdictional constraints inhibit the prosecution of such
    violations;
    (2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and
    programs that encourage and improve coordination among Federal
    departments and agencies and States, and between States, in the
    prevention and prosecution of such violations;
    (3) identify existing and potential international policies
    and programs that encourage and improve coordination between
    countries in the prevention and prosecution of such violations;
    and
    (4) consider--
    (A) the benefit and potential sources of additional
    resources for the Federal prevention and prosecution of
    criminal violations of that section;
    (B) whether to establish memoranda of understanding
    regarding the prevention and prosecution of such
    violations between--
    (i) the States;
    (ii) the States and the Federal Government;
    and
    (iii) the Federal Government and a foreign
    government;
    (C) whether to establish a process to allow States
    to request Federal subpoenas from the Commission;
    (D) whether extending civil enforcement authority to
    the States would assist in the successful prevention and
    prosecution of such violations;
    (E) whether increased forfeiture and imprisonment
    penalties are appropriate, such as extending
    imprisonment for such a violation to a term longer than
    2 years;
    (F) whether regulation of any entity that enters
    into a business arrangement with a common carrier
    regulated under title II of the Communications Act of
    1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) for the specific purpose of
    carrying, routing, or transmitting a call that
    constitutes such a violation would assist in the
    successful prevention and prosecution of such
    violations; and
    (G) the extent to which, if any, Department of
    Justice policies to pursue the prosecution of violations
    causing economic harm, physical danger, or erosion of an
    inhabitant's peace of mind and sense of security inhibit
    the prevention or prosecution of such violations.

    (c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be composed of
    such representatives of Federal departments and agencies as the Attorney
    General considers appropriate, such as--
    (1) the Department of Commerce;
    (2) the Department of State;
    (3) the Department of Homeland Security;
    (4) the Commission;
    (5) the Federal Trade Commission; and
    (6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    (d) <>  Non-Federal
    Stakeholders.--In carrying out the study under subsection (a), the
    interagency working group shall consult

    [[Page 3282]]

    with such non-Federal stakeholders as the Attorney General determines
    have the relevant expertise, including the National Association of
    Attorneys General.

    (e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
    the enactment of this Act, the interagency working group shall submit to
    the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
    the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a
    report on the findings of the study under subsection (a), including--
    (1) <> any recommendations
    regarding the prevention and prosecution of such violations; and
    (2) a description of what progress, if any, relevant Federal
    departments and agencies have made in implementing the
    recommendations under paragraph (1).
    SEC. <>  6. ACCESS TO NUMBER RESOURCES.

    (a) In General.--
    (1) <>  Examination of fcc
    policies.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
    enactment of this Act, the Commission shall commence a
    proceeding to determine how Commission policies regarding access
    to number resources, including number resources for toll-free
    and non-toll-free telephone numbers, could be modified,
    including by establishing registration and compliance
    obligations, and requirements that providers of voice service
    given access to number resources take sufficient steps to know
    the identity of the customers of such providers, to help reduce
    access to numbers by potential perpetrators of violations of
    section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    227(b)).
    (2) Regulations.--If the Commission determines under
    paragraph (1) that modifying the policies described in that
    paragraph could help achieve the goal described in that
    paragraph, the Commission shall prescribe regulations to
    implement those policy modifications.

    (b) <>  Authority.--Any person who knowingly,
    through an employee, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or
    indirectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, is a party to
    obtaining number resources, including number resources for toll-free and
    non-toll-free telephone numbers, from a common carrier regulated under
    title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), in
    violation of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a), shall,
    notwithstanding section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
    U.S.C. 503(b)(5)), be subject to a forfeiture penalty under section
    503(b) of that Act (47 U.S.C. 503(b)). A forfeiture penalty under this
    subsection shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by
    law.
    SEC. 7. <>  PROTECTIONS FROM SPOOFED
    CALLS.

    (a) <>  In General.--Not later than 1
    year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and consistent with
    the call authentication frameworks under section 4, the Commission shall
    initiate a rulemaking to help protect a subscriber from receiving
    unwanted calls or text messages from a caller using an unauthenticated
    number.

    (b) Considerations.--In promulgating rules under subsection (a), the
    Commission shall consider--
    (1) the Government Accountability Office report on combating
    the fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller
    identification information required by section 503(c) of

    [[Page 3283]]

    division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public
    Law 115-141);
    (2) the best means of ensuring that a subscriber or provider
    has the ability to block calls from a caller using an
    unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number;
    (3) the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from
    unauthenticated calls;
    (4) the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller
    identification information; and
    (5) the availability and cost of providing protection from
    the unwanted calls or text messages described in subsection (a).
    SEC. 8. CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR EXEMPTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934
    (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) is amended--
    (1) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking ``; and'' and
    inserting a semicolon;
    (2) in subparagraph (H), by striking the period at the end
    and inserting ``; and''; and
    (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(I) shall ensure that any exemption under
    subparagraph (B) or (C) contains requirements for calls
    made in reliance on the exemption 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.''.

    (b) <> Deadline for Regulations.--In the
    case of any exemption issued under subparagraph (B) or (C) of section
    227(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(2)) before
    the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, not later
    than 1 year after such date of enactment, prescribe such regulations, or
    amend such existing regulations, as necessary to ensure that such
    exemption contains each requirement described in subparagraph (I) of
    such section, as added by subsection (a). To the extent such an
    exemption contains such a requirement before such date of enactment,
    nothing in this section or the amendments made by this section shall be
    construed to require the Commission to prescribe or amend regulations
    relating to such requirement.
    SEC. 9. REPORT ON REASSIGNED NUMBER DATABASE.

    (a) <>  Report to
    Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
    Act, the Commission shall submit to Congress, and make publicly
    available on the website of the Commission, a report on the status of
    the efforts of the Commission pursuant to the Second Report and Order in
    the matter of Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful
    Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 18-177; adopted on December 12,
    2018).

    (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall describe
    the efforts of the Commission, as described in such Second Report and
    Order, to ensure--
    (1) the establishment of a database of telephone numbers
    that have been disconnected, in order to provide a person making
    calls subject to section 227(b) of the Communications Act of
    1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)) with comprehensive and timely
    information to enable such person to avoid making calls without

    [[Page 3284]]

    the prior express consent of the called party because the number
    called has been reassigned;
    (2) that a person who wishes to use any safe harbor provided
    pursuant to such Second Report and Order with respect to making
    calls must demonstrate that, before making the call, the person
    appropriately checked the most recent update of the database and
    the database reported that the number had not been disconnected;
    and
    (3) that if the person makes the demonstration described in
    paragraph (2), the person will be shielded from liability under
    section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    227(b)) should the database return an inaccurate result.
    SEC. 10. STOP ROBOCALLS.

    (a) Information Sharing Regarding Robocall and Spoofing
    Violations.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    227) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Information Sharing.--
    ``(1) <>  In general.--Not
    later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this
    subsection, the Commission shall prescribe regulations to
    establish a process that streamlines the ways in which a private
    entity may voluntarily share with the Commission information
    relating to--
    ``(A) a call made or a text message sent in
    violation of subsection (b); or
    ``(B) a call or text message for which misleading or
    inaccurate caller identification information was caused
    to be transmitted in violation of subsection (e).
    ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term
    `text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection
    (e)(8).''.

    (b) Robocall Blocking Service.--Section 227 of the Communications
    Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as amended by subsection (a), is further
    amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j) Robocall Blocking Service.--
    ``(1) <>  In general.--Not later than 1
    year after the date of the enactment of this subsection, the
    Commission shall take a final agency action to ensure the
    robocall blocking services provided on an opt-out or opt-in
    basis pursuant to the Declaratory Ruling of the Commission in
    the matter of Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful
    Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59; FCC 19-51; adopted on June 6,
    2019)--
    ``(A) are provided with transparency and effective
    redress options for both--
    ``(i) consumers; and
    ``(ii) callers; and
    ``(B) are provided with no additional line item
    charge to consumers and no additional charge to callers
    for resolving complaints related to erroneously blocked
    calls; and
    ``(C) make all reasonable efforts to avoid blocking
    emergency public safety calls.
    ``(2) Text message defined.--In this subsection, the term
    `text message' has the meaning given such term in subsection
    (e)(8).''.

    (c) Study on Information Requirements for Certain VoIP Service
    Providers.--

    [[Page 3285]]

    (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a study
    regarding whether to require a provider of covered VoIP service
    to--
    (A) provide to the Commission contact information
    for such provider and keep such information current; and
    (B) retain records relating to each call transmitted
    over the covered VoIP service of such provider that are
    sufficient to trace such call back to the source of such
    call.
    (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 18 months after the
    date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit
    to Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
    paragraph (1).
    (3) Covered voip service defined.--In this subsection, the
    term ``covered VoIP service'' means a service that--
    (A) is an interconnected VoIP service (as defined in
    section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    153)); or
    (B) would be an interconnected VoIP service (as so
    defined) except that the service permits users to
    terminate calls to the public switched telephone network
    but does not permit users to receive calls that
    originate on the public switched telephone network.

    (d) <>  Transitional Rule
    Regarding Definition of Text Message.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (i)
    of section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227), as
    added by subsection (a) of this section, and paragraph (2) of subsection
    (j) of such section 227, as added by subsection (b) of this section,
    shall apply before the effective date of the amendment made to
    subsection (e)(8) of such section 227 by subparagraph (C) of section
    503(a)(2) of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
    (Public Law 115-141) as if such amendment was already in effect.
    SEC. 11. <> PROVISION OF EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN
    ROBOCALL VIOLATIONS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

    (a) In General.--If the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau of the
    Commission obtains evidence that suggests a willful, knowing, and
    repeated robocall violation with an intent to defraud, cause harm, or
    wrongfully obtain anything of value, the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau
    shall provide such evidence to the Attorney General.
    (b) <>  Report to Congress.--Not later than 1
    year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually
    thereafter, the Commission shall publish on its website and submit to
    the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and
    the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a
    report that--
    (1) states the number of instances during the preceding year
    in which the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau provided the
    evidence described in subsection (a) to the Attorney General;
    and
    (2) contains a general summary of the types of robocall
    violations to which such evidence relates.

    (c) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
    construed to affect the ability of the Commission or the Chief of the
    Enforcement Bureau under other law--
    (1) to refer a matter to the Attorney General; or

    [[Page 3286]]

    (2) to pursue or continue pursuit of an enforcement action
    in a matter with respect to which the Chief of the Enforcement
    Bureau provided the evidence described in subsection (a) to the
    Attorney General.

    (d) Robocall Violation Defined.--In this section, the term
    ``robocall violation'' means a violation of subsection (b) or (e) of
    section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
    SEC. 12. <> PROTECTION FROM ONE-RING
    SCAMS.

    (a) <>  Initiation of Proceeding.--Not later than
    120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission
    shall initiate a proceeding to protect called parties from one-ring
    scams.

    (b) Matters To Be Considered.--As part of the proceeding required by
    subsection (a), the Commission shall consider how the Commission can--
    (1) work with Federal and State law enforcement agencies to
    address one-ring scams;
    (2) work with the governments of foreign countries to
    address one-ring scams;
    (3) <>  in consultation with the
    Federal Trade Commission, better educate consumers about how to
    avoid one-ring scams;
    (4) incentivize voice service providers to stop calls made
    to perpetrate one-ring scams from being received by called
    parties, including consideration of adding identified one-ring
    scam type numbers to the Commission's existing list of
    permissible categories for carrier-initiated blocking;
    (5) work with entities that provide call-blocking services
    to address one-ring scams; and
    (6) establish obligations on international gateway providers
    that are the first point of entry for these calls into the
    United States, including potential requirements that such
    providers verify with the foreign originator the nature or
    purpose of calls before initiating service.

    (c) <>  Report to Congress.--Not later than 1
    year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
    publish on its website and submit to the Committee on Energy and
    Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on the status of the
    proceeding required by subsection (a).

    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
    (1) One-ring scam.--The term ``one-ring scam'' means a scam
    in which a caller makes a call and allows the call to ring the
    called party for a short duration, in order to prompt the called
    party to return the call, thereby subjecting the called party to
    charges.
    (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
    term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    153).
    (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service'' has the
    meaning given such term in section 227(e)(8) of the
    Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    227(e)(8)). <> This paragraph shall apply
    before the effective date of the amendment made to such section
    by subparagraph (C) of section 503(a)(2) of division P of the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) as if
    such amendment was already in effect.

    [[Page 3287]]

    SEC. 13. ANNUAL ROBOCALL REPORT.

    (a) <>  In General.--Not
    later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
    annually thereafter, the Commission shall make publicly available on the
    website of the Commission, and submit to the Committee on Energy and
    Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation of the Senate, a report on the status of
    private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful
    robocalls by the registered consortium and the participation of voice
    service providers in such efforts.

    (b) Contents of Report.--The report required under subsection (a)
    shall include, at minimum, the following:
    (1) A description of private-led efforts to trace back the
    origin of suspected unlawful robocalls by the registered
    consortium and the actions taken by the registered consortium to
    coordinate with the Commission.
    (2) <>  A list of voice service providers
    identified by the registered consortium that participated in
    private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected
    unlawful robocalls through the registered consortium.
    (3) <>  A list of each voice service provider
    that received a request from the registered consortium to
    participate in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of
    suspected unlawful robocalls and refused to participate, as
    identified by the registered consortium.
    (4) The reason, if any, each voice service provider
    identified by the registered consortium provided for not
    participating in private-led efforts to trace back the origin of
    suspected unlawful robocalls.
    (5) A description of how the Commission may use the
    information provided to the Commission by voice service
    providers or the registered consortium that have participated in
    private-led efforts to trace back the origin of suspected
    unlawful robocalls in the enforcement efforts by the Commission.

    (c) <>  Additional Information.--Not
    later than 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
    annually thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public
    seeking additional information from voice service providers and the
    registered consortium of private-led efforts to trace back the origin of
    suspected unlawful robocalls necessary for the report by the Commission
    required under subsection (a).

    (d) Registration of Consortium of Private-Led Efforts To Trace Back
    the Origin of Suspected Unlawful Robocalls.--
    (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
    the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules to
    establish a registration process for the registration of a
    single consortium that conducts private-led efforts to trace
    back the origin of suspected unlawful
    robocalls. <> The consortium shall meet the
    following requirements:
    (A) Be a neutral third party competent to manage the
    private-led effort to trace back the origin of suspected
    unlawful robocalls in the judgement of the Commission.
    (B) Maintain a set of written best practices about
    the management of such efforts and regarding providers
    of voice services' participation in private-led efforts
    to trace back the origin of suspected unlawful
    robocalls.

    [[Page 3288]]

    (C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the
    Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any
    private-led efforts to trace back the origin of
    suspected unlawful robocalls conducted by the third
    party focus on ``fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful''
    traffic.
    (D) <>  File a notice with the
    Commission that the consortium intends to conduct
    private-led efforts to trace back in advance of such
    registration.
    (2) Annual notice by the commission seeking registrations.--
    Not <> later than 120 days
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually
    thereafter, the Commission shall issue a notice to the public
    seeking the registration described in paragraph (1).

    (e) List of Voice Service Providers.--The Commission may publish a
    list of voice service providers and take appropriate enforcement action
    based on information obtained from the consortium about voice service
    providers that refuse to participate in private-led efforts to trace
    back the origin of suspected unlawful robocalls, and other information
    the Commission may collect about voice service providers that are found
    to originate or transmit substantial amounts of unlawful robocalls.
    (f) Definitions.--In this section:
    (1) Private-led effort to trace back.--The term ``private-
    led effort to trace back'' means an effort made by the
    registered consortium of voice service providers to establish a
    methodology for determining the origin of a suspected unlawful
    robocall.
    (2) Registered consortium.--The term ``registered
    consortium'' means the consortium registered under subsection
    (d).
    (3) Suspected unlawful robocall.--The term ``suspected
    unlawful robocall'' means a call that the Commission or a voice
    service provider reasonably believes was made in violation of
    subsection (b) or (e) of section 227 of the Communications Act
    of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227).
    (4) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
    (A) means any service that is interconnected with
    the public switched telephone network and that furnishes
    voice communications to an end user using resources from
    the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to
    the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
    Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications
    Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
    (B) includes--
    (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile
    machine, computer, or other device to a telephone
    facsimile machine; and
    (ii) without limitation, any service that
    enables real-time, two-way voice communications,
    including any service that requires internet
    protocol-compatible customer premises equipment
    (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound
    calling, whether or not the service is one-way or
    two-way voice over internet protocol.
    SEC. 14. <>  HOSPITAL ROBOCALL PROTECTION
    GROUP.

    (a) <>  Establishment.--Not later than 180 days
    after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall
    establish an

    [[Page 3289]]

    advisory committee to be known as the ``Hospital Robocall Protection
    Group''.

    (b) Membership.--The Group shall be composed only of the following
    members:
    (1) An equal number of representatives from each of the
    following:
    (A) Voice service providers that serve hospitals.
    (B) Companies that focus on mitigating unlawful
    robocalls.
    (C) Consumer advocacy organizations.
    (D) Providers of one-way voice over internet
    protocol services described in subsection (e)(3)(B)(ii).
    (E) Hospitals.
    (F) State government officials focused on combating
    unlawful robocalls.
    (2) One representative of the Commission.
    (3) One representative of the Federal Trade Commission.

    (c) <>  Issuance of Best Practices.--Not later than
    180 days after the date on which the Group is established under
    subsection (a), the Group shall issue best practices regarding the
    following:
    (1) How voice service providers can better combat unlawful
    robocalls made to hospitals.
    (2) How hospitals can better protect themselves from such
    calls, including by using unlawful robocall mitigation
    techniques.
    (3) How the Federal Government and State governments can
    help combat such calls.

    (d) <>  Proceeding by FCC.--Not later
    than 180 days after the date on which the best practices are issued by
    the Group under subsection (c), the Commission shall conclude a
    proceeding to assess the extent to which the voluntary adoption of such
    best practices can be facilitated to protect hospitals and other
    institutions.

    (e) Definitions.--In this section:
    (1) Group.--The term ``Group'' means the Hospital Robocall
    Protection Group established under subsection (a).
    (2) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
    term in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
    153).
    (3) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
    (A) means any service that is interconnected with
    the public switched telephone network and that furnishes
    voice communications to an end user using resources from
    the North American Numbering Plan or any successor to
    the North American Numbering Plan adopted by the
    Commission under section 251(e)(1) of the Communications
    Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
    (B) includes--
    (i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile
    machine, computer, or other device to a telephone
    facsimile machine; and
    (ii) without limitation, any service that
    enables real-time, two-way voice communications,
    including any service that requires internet
    protocol-compatible customer premises equipment
    (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound
    calling, whether or not the service is one-way or
    two-way voice over internet protocol.

    [[Page 3290]]

    SEC. 15. SEPARABILITY CLAUSE.

    If any provision of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, or
    the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
    the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the
    application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall
    not be affected thereby.

    Approved December 30, 2019.

    LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 151:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SENATE REPORTS: No. 116-41 (Comm. on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation).
    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 165 (2019):
    May 23, considered and passed Senate.
    Dec. 4, considered and passed House, amended.
    Dec. 19, Senate concurred in House amendment.