[Senate Report 116-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 585
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-292
======================================================================
DATA ANALYTICS ROBOCALL TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2019
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 2204
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 16, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixteenth congress
second session
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
John Keast, Staff Director
David Strickland, Minority Staff Director
Calendar No. 585
116th Congress} { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 116-292
======================================================================
DATA ANALYTICS ROBOCALL TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 2019
_______
November 16, 2020.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2204]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 2204) to allow the Federal
Communications Commission to carry out a pilot program under
which voice service providers could block certain automated
calls, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a
substitute) and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
S. 2204 as reported by the Committee would require the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) to begin
a rulemaking to consider establishing a process to maintain a
list of numbers that are not eligible for call blocking by a
voice service provider. It also would direct the FCC to prepare
a report on the effectiveness of various call blocking tools.
BACKGROUND AND NEEDS
Consumers are plagued by illegal robocalls. In 2018, it was
projected that in 2019, nearly 50 percent of all calls to
mobile phones would be scam robocalls.\1\ Another report
estimates that robocalls contacted Americans' phones almost 5
billion times in January 2020, amounting to almost 2,000 calls
per second.\2\ Unfortunately, the bad actors behind these calls
are finding new ways to place these nuisance calls. For
example, scammers often falsify (or spoof) the caller ID that
appears on a call recipient's phone. A number is spoofed when
the caller ID information is manipulated or altered to display
anything other than the originating telephone number.\3\ Under
Federal law, spoofing is illegal if done ``with the intent to
defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of
value.''\4\ As technology has progressed, it has allowed
malicious and illegal robocallers to dramatically increase
their ability to target consumers.\5\ In December 2019,
President Trump signed S. 151, the Pallone-Thune Telephone
Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED)
Act,\6\ to address illegal robocalls and spoofing. The TRACED
Act mandates the adoption of caller ID authentication
technology and, in appropriate circumstances, allows a voice
service provider to block calls it cannot adequately
authenticate. Call authentication technology verifies that the
calling number is accurate and not spoofed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\First Orion, ``Nearly 50% of U.S. Mobile Traffic Will be Scam
Calls by 2019,'' Sep. 12, 2018 (https://firstorion.com/nearly-50-of-u-
s-mobile-traffic-will-be-scam-calls-by-2019/) (accessed May 13, 2020).
\2\YouMail, ``January 2020 Nationwide Robocall Data'' (https://
robocallindex.com/2020/
january) (accessed May 13, 2020).
\3\See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Truth in Caller ID
Act of 2009, WC Docket. No. 11-39, Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 9114,
9115, para. 1 (2011) (stating that spoofing may also involve
manipulating or altering the caller ID to display a name or other text
(i.e., anything other than the originating number)).
\4\Truth in Caller ID Act; 15 U.S.C. 227(e).
\5\Sometimes spoofing is used legitimately to protect the caller or
show affiliation with a specific entity. For example, a battered
women's shelter might disguise its telephone number to protect the
shelter's true number, which could be tracked and used to locate the
center. A doctor calling patients from her cellphone may spoof her
office number to help her patients know who is calling and to avoid
giving out personal contact information. See Sarah Krouse, ```Stop
Robocalling Me!'; `I Didn't!''', The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 1, 2019
(https://www.wsj.com/articles/stop-robocalling-me-i-didnt-11546261200)
(accessed May 13, 2020).
\6\Pub. L. 116-105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the relief call authentication and call blocking
may provide consumers, stakeholders fear that some legitimate
calls could be inadvertently blocked, including calls from
public safety organizations, the government, and schools.\7\
These groups have argued for the development of one or more
lists of telephone numbers that should be exempt from blocking
by call blocking and call authentication systems. The FCC
sought comment on the implementation of a ``critical calls
list'' containing such numbers in a June 2019 Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).\8\ It also sought comment from the
public about the types of numbers that should be included on
that list.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls,
CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, Declaratory Ruling and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 4876, para. 63 (2019)
(Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling and Third FNPRM).
\8\Id. at paras. 63-70.
\9\Id. at paras. 63-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term ``Critical Calls List'' refers to a list of phone
numbers that would be exempt from call blocking. A Critical
Call List differs from other call lists, such as white lists.
White lists permit a consumer to specify the telephone numbers
from which they wish to receive calls, making call blocking the
default.\10\ But such lists ``create[] a risk that illegal
callers will obtain those numbers and spoof them in order to
reach consumers,''\11\ making them less attractive. A Critical
Calls List has a limited set of telephone numbers, making it
more manageable, and would be maintained solely by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at para. 43.
\11\Id. at para. 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate continues about who should be responsible for the
collection and maintenance of a Critical Calls List or similar
directory of telephone numbers that should be exempt from
blocking of illegal robocalls. The FCC's FNPRM suggested that
it should be the responsibility of the voice service providers
utilizing call blocking and call authentication to develop and
maintain such lists. Others have suggested that the FCC should
be responsible for developing and maintaining the list.\12\
Stakeholders supporting this approach argue that the FCC is
best positioned to determine the types of numbers that should
be included on a list and to ensure that any numbers added to
the list are verified, updated, secure, and available to all
voice service providers. They also suggest that a list
maintained by the FCC would also reduce the burden on
individual voice service providers from having to perform such
functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. at para. 63 (``Accordingly, we here consider requiring any
voice service provider that offers call-blocking to maintain a
`Critical Calls List' of numbers it may not block.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2204, as amended, would direct the FCC to begin a
rulemaking to specifically consider whether the Commission
should directly maintain a list of telephone numbers that
cannot be blocked, and what categories of numbers should be
included on that list. At the same time, it expressly would not
prevent the FCC from moving forward on the pending FNPRM.
Separately, the FCC's Call Blocking Declaratory Ruling and
Third FNPRM directs the agency's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB) to collect information and prepare reports
on the effectiveness of call blocking and caller ID
authentication technologies.\13\ However, those reports are not
required to be submitted to Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id. at paras. 87-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 2204, the Data Analytics Robocall Technology Act of
2019, was introduced on July 23, 2019, by Senator Crapo (for
himself and Senator Klobuchar) and was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate. On December 11, 2019, the Committee met in open
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 2204 reported
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute).
ESTIMATED COSTS
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 2204 would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to initiate a rulemaking related to maintaining a list of
numbers that may not be blocked by a voice service provider.
Such a list could include numbers associated with public safety
facilities, government entities, or schools. In addition, the
bill would require the FCC to submit to the Congress an
analysis of the effectiveness of various tools to block
robocalls.
CBO assumes that S. 2204 would be enacted in fiscal year
2020. Using information from the FCC, CBO expects the
commission would require four attorneys for less than a full
year at an annual average cost of $2 1 0,000 each to implement
the bill. In total, CBO estimates that implementing S. 2204
would cost less than $500,000. However, under current law the
FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the
appropriated costs of its regulatory activities each year;
therefore, CBO estimates that the net effect on spending
subject to appropriation would be negligible, assuming
appropriation actions consistent with that authority.
If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the
costs of implementing provisions in the bill, S. 2204 would
increase the cost of an existing private-sector mandate on
entities required to pay those fees. Using information from the
FCC, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate
would be small and would fall well below the annual threshold
established in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) for
private-sector mandates ($168 million in 2020, adjusted
annually for inflation).
S. 2204 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are David Hughes
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Number of Persons Covered
S. 2204 would direct the FCC to consider developing a
process whereby the FCC would maintain a list of telephone
numbers that cannot be blocked by voice service providers. The
bill affects entities already subject to FCC rules and
regulations, and therefore the number of persons covered should
be consistent with current levels.
Economic Impact
S. 2204 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
Nation's economy.
Privacy
S. 2204 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
personal privacy of individuals.
Paperwork
S. 2204 would not increase paperwork requirements for
private individuals or businesses. The bill would direct the
FCC to prepare a report to Congress related to its findings on
the effectiveness of various categories of call blocking
technologies.
CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1. Short title.
This section would provide that the bill may be cited as
the ``Data Analytics Robocall Technology Act of 2019'' or as
the ``DART Act of 2019''.
Section 2. Definitions.
This section would define four terms used throughout the
bill. The definitions of the terms ``covered ruling''\14\ and
``voice service''\15\ are of particular importance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\FCC 19-51; CG Docket No. 17-59.
\15\47 U.S.C. 251(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3. Rulemaking.
Section 3 would direct the Commission, not later than 18
months after enactment of the Act, to initiate a rulemaking to
consider establishing a process under which the Commission
would maintain a list of numbers not eligible to be blocked by
a voice service provider. The section further provides that the
list of numbers that are not eligible to be blocked may include
the following: (1) numbers used for outgoing calls by a public
safety answering point or similar facility; (2) numbers used to
originate calls from a government entity, such as a call
generated during an emergency; (3) numbers used by a school or
similar institution to provide school-related notifications,
such as for weather-related closures or for the existence of an
emergency affecting a school or students; and (4) numbers used
for similar or emergency purposes, as determined appropriate by
the FCC. The Committee intends that the FCC use any and all
information collected to date related to creation and
maintenance of a list of numbers not eligible to be blocked to
inform this rulemaking, including from the covered ruling.
Section 4. Reports on deployment and implementation of call blocking
and caller ID authentication.
Section 4 would require that the FCC submit to appropriate
congressional committees an analysis of the following: (1) the
effectiveness of various categories of call blocking tools; and
(2) any related legislative recommendations reached by the FCC.
This report to Congress would be due not later than 180 days
after the FCC receives any report under paragraph 90 of the
covered ruling. The Committee notes that the covered ruling
directs CGB to prepare two reports on the effectiveness of call
blocking technologies. Accordingly, the Committee intends for
the FCC to submit to Congress two separate reports pursuant to
this section containing the necessary information required
under this section. The Committee also intends that for
purposes of the reports, the judgment of the FCC on the
effectiveness of call blocking technologies shall include, at a
minimum, the information the Commission has directed CGB to
include in the reports required by the covered ruling.
Section 5. Rule of construction.
Section 5 sets forth a rule of construction for the Act
stating that nothing in the Act may be construed to impede or
delay the FCC's analysis of the most effective means to
maintain and administer a list of numbers that may not be
blocked (referred to as the Critical Calls List in the covered
ruling) under the covered ruling. The Committee therefore
intends that this Act be supplementary to the FCC's continued
work on the Critical Calls List pursuant to the covered ruling,
and should not be used by the Commission to delay that work.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]