Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (“TRACED Act”)
47 U.S.C. 227(b)
SUMMARY:
The TRACED ACT modifies sections of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which is itself an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, codified as 47 U.S.C. § 227. In the TRACED (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence) Act, Congress gave the FCC new tools to fight and regulate robocalls. It contains provisions that expand the FCC’s ability to issue fines for intentional violations of the TCPA, and other methods to reduce unlawful calls.
CITATION:
H. R. 2015
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (04/01/2019)
116th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2015
To deter criminal robocall violations and improve enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 1, 2019
Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Brindisi, and Mr. Smucker) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
A BILL
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 “Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act” or the “TRACED Act”.
SEC. 2. 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 any provision of this subsection shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty pursuant to section 503(b)(1). 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. 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.
“(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 paragraph (3) or (4) of section 503(b).
“(E) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—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; and
“(ii) under subparagraph (B) if the violation charged occurred more than 3 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.”; and
(2) by striking subsection (h).
(b) Applicability.—The amendments made by this section shall not affect any action or proceeding commenced before and pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline For Regulations.—The Federal Communications Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by this section not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. 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 to attach a certificate of authenticity to each phone to verify the source of each call.
(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
(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 Framework.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall require a provider of voice service to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the internet protocol networks of voice service providers.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Federal Communications Commission shall not take the action described in paragraph (1) if the Commission determines that a provider of voice service, not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act—
(A) has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework for calls on the internet protocol networks of voice service providers;
(B) has agreed voluntarily to participate with other providers of voice service in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework;
(C) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework; and
(D) will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.—Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the determination required under paragraph (2), which shall include—
(A) an analysis of the extent to which providers of a voice service have implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework; and
(B) an assessment of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework, as being implemented under this section, in addressing all aspects of call authentication.
(4) REVIEW AND REVISION OR REPLACEMENT.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission, after public notice and an opportunity for comment, shall—
(A) assess the efficacy of the call authentication framework implemented under this section;
(B) based on the assessment under subparagraph (A), revise or replace the call authentication framework under this section if the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so; and
(C) submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the assessment under subparagraph (A) and on any actions to revise or replace the call authentication framework under subparagraph (B).
(5) EXTENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINE.—The Federal Communications Commission may extend any deadline for the implementation of a call authentication framework required under this section by 12 months or such further amount of time as the Commission determines necessary if the Commission determines that purchasing or upgrading equipment to support call authentication would constitute a substantial hardship for a provider or category of providers.
(c) Safe Harbor And Other Regulations.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal Communications Commission shall 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 framework under subsection (b);
(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 framework under subsection (b); and
(C) establishing a process to permit a calling party adversely affected by the information provided by the call authentication framework under subsection (b) to verify the authenticity of the calling party's calls.
(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In establishing the safe harbor under paragraph (1), the Federal Communications Commission shall consider limiting the liability of a provider based on the extent to which the provider—
(A) blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or in part, on the information provided by the call authentication framework under subsection (b);
(B) implemented procedures based, in whole or in part, on the information provided by the call authentication framework under subsection (b); and
(C) used reasonable care.
(d) Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Communications Commission from initiating a rulemaking pursuant to its existing statutory authority.
SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS FROM SPOOFED CALLS.
(a) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and consistent with the call authentication framework under section 3, the Federal Communications 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 Federal Communications Commission shall consider—
(1) the Government Accountability Office report on combating the fraudulent provision of misleading or inaccurate caller identification required by section 503(c) of 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. 5. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.
(a) In General.—The Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Communications 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)).
(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 Federal Communications 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 inhibits 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 Federal Communications 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 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 enactment of this Act, the interagency working group shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 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 enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall commence a proceeding to determine whether Federal Communications 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, 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 Federal Communications 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) of this section, 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 of that Act. A forfeiture penalty under this subsection shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for by law.
47 U.S.C. 227(b)
U.S. Code
Title 47—Telecommunications
Chapter 5—Wire or Radio Communication (Sections 151 To 646)
Subchapter I—General Provisions (Sections 151 To 163)
Subchapter II—Common Carriers (Sections 201 To 276)
Part I—Common Carrier Regulation (Sections 201 To 231)
Sec. 227b. Call authentication
Sec. 227b-1. Access to number resources
Sec. 227b-2. Provision of evidence of certain robocall violations to Attorney General
§227b. 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 this title; 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.
(b) Authentication frameworks
(1) In general
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), and in accordance with paragraph (6), not later than 18 months after December 30, 2019, 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 December 30, 2019, 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 December 30, 2019; 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 December 30, 2019.
(3) Implementation report
Not later than 12 months after December 30, 2019, 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
(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 December 30, 2019, 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 December 30, 2019, 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.
(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 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 December 30, 2019, 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 this title, as added by section 10, the Commission shall, not later than 1 year after December 30, 2019, 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 this title, 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.
( Pub. L. 116–105, §4, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3276 .)
Editorial Notes
References in Text
Section 13, referred to in subsec. (b)(5)(C)(ii), is section 13 of Pub. L. 116–105, which is set out as a note under section 227 of this title.
Section 10, referred to in subsec. (c), means section 10 of Pub. L. 116–105.
Codification
Section was enacted as part of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, also known as the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, and not as part of the Communications Act of 1934 which comprises this chapter.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Definition
For definition of "Commission" as used in this section, see section 2 of Pub. L. 116–105, set out as a note under section 227 of this title.
§227b–1. Access to number resources
(a) In general
(1) Examination of FCC policies
Not later than 180 days after December 30, 2019, 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.
( Pub. L. 116–105, §6, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3282 .)
Editorial Notes
References in Text
The Communications Act of 1934, referred to in subsec. (b), is act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064 . Title II of the Act is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
Codification
Section was enacted as part of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, also known as the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, and not as part of the Communications Act of 1934 which comprises this chapter.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Definition
For definition of "Commission" as used in this section, see section 2 of Pub. L. 116–105, set out as a note under section 227 of this title.
§227b–2. 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 December 30, 2019, 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
(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 this title.
( Pub. L. 116–105, §11, Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3285 .)
Editorial Notes
Codification
Section was enacted as part of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, also known as the Pallone-Thune TRACED Act, and not as part of the Communications Act of 1934 which comprises this chapter.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Definition
For definition of "Commission" as used in this section, see section 2 of Pub. L. 116–105, set out as a note under section 227 of this title.
For more information, see here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section227b&num=0&edition=prelim
AND
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2015/text
AND
https://www.fcc.gov/TRACEDAct
These materials were obtained directly from the Federal Government public website and are posted here for your review and reference only. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works. This may not be the most recent version. The U.S. Government may have more current information. We make no guarantees or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of this information, or the information linked to. Please check the linked sources directly.