S. 151 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

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 ‘‘PalloneThune 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. 
S. 151—2 

‘‘(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 TRANS- MISSION 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 
S. 151—3 

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 
S. 151—4 

(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 
S. 151—5 

(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 NONINTERNET 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. 
S. 151—6 

(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 
S. 151—7 

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)). 
S. 151—8 

(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 
S. 151—9 

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 
S. 151—10 

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 
S. 151—11 

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.— 
S. 151—12 

(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 
S. 151—13 

(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. 
S. 151—14 

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 privateled 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 privateled 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. 
S. 151—15 

(C) Consistent with section 222(d)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(d)(2)), any privateled 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 privateled 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 
S. 151—16 

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. 
S. 151—17 

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. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.