[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.