Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Protecting Consumers From Unwanted Robocalls and Robotexts, 73321-73330 [2024-19028]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73321-73330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19028]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 23-362, FCC 24-84; FR ID 239002]


Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on 
Protecting Consumers From Unwanted Robocalls and Robotexts

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission or FCC) proposes steps to protect consumers from the abuse 
of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in robocalls alongside actions that 
clear the path for positive uses of AI, including its use to improve 
access to the telephone network for people with disabilities. 
Specifically, the document proposes to: define AI-generated calls, 
adopt new rules that would require callers disclose to consumers when 
they receive an AI-generated call, adopt protections for consumers to 
ensure that callers adequately apprise them of their use of AI-
generated calls when consumers affirmatively consent to receive such 
calls, adopt protections to ensure that positive uses of AI that have 
already helped people with disabilities use the telephone network can 
thrive without threat of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) 
liability. The document also seeks additional comment and information 
on developing technologies that can alert consumers to unwanted or 
illegal calls and texts, including AI-generated calls.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 10, 2024, and reply 
comments are due on or before October 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document. 
Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit 
comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59, by any of the following 
methods by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by 
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
     Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the 
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis 
Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class 
Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please 
contact Richard D. Smith, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy Division, 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at [email protected] or 
(717) 338-2797 or Noah Cherry, Attorney Advisor, Consumer Policy 
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 
[email protected] or (202) 418-7835. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] 
or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in CG Docket 
No. 23-362, FCC 24-84, adopted on August 7, 2024, and released on 
August 8, 2024. The full text of this document is available for public 
inspection at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-84A1.pdf To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an email to [email protected] 
or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission via email to [email protected] and to Cathy 
Williams, FCC, via email to [email protected].
    Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act: The Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires 
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a 
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary 
of the NPRM is

[[Page 73322]]

available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document 
contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, 
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites 
the general public to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due November 12, 2024.
    Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) 
way to further reduce the information collection burden on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, 
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how 
it might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Synopsis

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. Complaints regarding unwanted and illegal robocalls and 
robotexts are consistently the top category of consumer complaints that 
the Commission receives. As a result, it is critical that the 
Commission stay abreast of new technologies that may impact the privacy 
protections afforded to consumers under the TCPA. The Commission thus 
proposes and seeks comment on measures designed to ensure that its 
rules keep pace with the fast-developing changes in AI technologies. In 
so doing, the Commission also seeks to ensure that the Commission's 
rules do not hinder the potential benefits that AI technologies can 
offer, including making telecommunications more readily accessible to 
individuals with disabilities.

AI-Generated Call Definition

    2. For purposes of identifying the types of calls that would be 
subject to the new rules proposed below, the Commission proposes to 
define ``AI generated call'' as ``a call that uses any technology or 
tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a text using 
computational technology or other machine learning, including 
predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process natural 
language and produce voice or text content to communicate with a called 
party over an outbound telephone call.'' The Commission acknowledges 
that AI technologies are evolving quickly and seek comment both on this 
proposed definition and on how to best ensure that any definition the 
Commission adopt keeps pace with these changes.
    3. The Commission believes this definition is consistent with 
Federal and state AI definitions cited in the AI NOI, and tailored to 
reflect the privacy protections under the Telephone Consumer Protection 
Act (TCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Public Law 102-
243, 105 Stat. 2394 (1991), codified at 47 U.S.C. 227, by focusing on 
AI-generated voice or text calls used to interact with consumers in 
outbound telephone calls. For example, the TCPA's prohibition on using 
an artificial or prerecorded voice message extends only to outbound 
calls that are ``made'' or ``initiated'' by the caller. The TCPA's 
requirements do not extend to technologies used to answer inbound 
calls. As a result, this definition avoids unintentionally encumbering 
uses of AI technologies that consumers never interact with and widely 
used existing customer service technologies on inbound calls. In 
addition, for the new disclosure that the Commission proposes in the 
NPRM to apply to autodialed text messages, the message would first have 
to be sent using equipment that meets the definition of an ``automatic 
telephone dialing system'' as defined by the TCPA. And second, they 
would need to meet the definition of ``AI-generated call'' that the 
Commission proposes pursuant to the NPRM.
    4. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed definition. Is 
this proposed definition suitable for addressing both the potential 
benefits and harms raised by AI technology? In other words, does the 
proposed definition capture the potentially harmful uses of AI that 
consumers would want an opportunity to avoid by having the option to 
not get those calls while excluding the positive uses of AI that the 
Commission would not want to deter with an express prior consent 
requirement? Is the proposed definition overinclusive or 
underinclusive? What changes, if any, should the Commission consider in 
adopting a definition of AI for these purposes?
    5. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is 
necessary to define ``AI-generated call'' with specificity, given that 
the TCPA expressly covers ``artificial or prerecorded voice,'' and 
given that the Commission has already determined that voice cloning and 
similar technologies qualify under that statutory phrase. If the 
Commission does not define an AI-generated call in this context, how 
would callers determine whether the disclosure obligations proposed 
below apply to the calls and texts messages that they are sending?

AI-Generated Call Disclosure

    6. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on new disclosure 
rules that would apply to AI-generated calls. First, The Commission 
proposes requiring callers making calls using AI-generated artificial 
or prerecorded voice messages to include clear and conspicuous 
disclosure that the consumer's consent to receive artificial and 
prerecorded calls may include consent to receive AI-generated calls, 
defined by the proposal the Commission describes above. Further, the 
Commission proposes requiring callers making autodialed text messages 
that include AI-generated content to provide clear and conspicuous 
disclosure that the consumer's consent to receive such messages may 
include consent to receive AI-generated content as defined by the 
proposal the Commission describes above. Finally, the Commission also 
proposes requiring callers using AI-generated voice to, at the 
beginning of each call, clearly disclose to the called party that the 
call is using AI-generated technology. The Commission's rules already 
require callers to obtain prior express consent from consumers to make 
artificial or prerecorded voice calls or autodialed calls absent an 
exemption. To facilitate consumers' ability to make an informed 
decision to manage unwanted calls, the Commission's rules require that 
callers making artificial or prerecorded voice calls disclose, at the 
beginning of the message, certain information that would enable the 
called party to identify the person or entity initiating the call. For 
calls that require the prior express written consent of the called 
party and which contain AI-generated messages, the Commission proposes 
that the written agreement authorizing delivery of such calls include 
clear and conspicuous disclosure informing the called party that they 
specifically authorize the caller to make calls containing AI-generated 
content.

[[Page 73323]]

    7. The Commission seeks comment on requiring additional disclosures 
at the point of consent. For calls that already require prior express 
consent, would it benefit consumers to require them to provide separate 
consent to receive AI-generated calls? The Commission believes that in, 
reliance on the Commission's prior express consent framework dating 
back several decades, many callers have already captured prior express 
consent to place autodialed and/or artificial or prerecorded voice 
calls in a manner that comports with the TCPA and the Commission's 
current rules. These callers, many of which are large consumer-facing 
institutions, rely on these consents at scale to place a large volume 
of artificial or prerecorded calls on a daily basis. Given this, should 
the Commission's proposed changes to disclosures at the point of 
consent apply prospectively only? In other words, should the Commission 
grandfather existing consents to place autodialed and/or artificial or 
prerecorded voice calls--either indefinitely or for a limited time? 
Would doing so minimize operational disruptions to obtain new consent? 
In conjunction with the Commission's cost/benefit analysis, the 
Commission seeks comment on the burdens that may be entailed by callers 
if they are required to disclose to those consumers from whom they 
already obtained consent that they intend to use AI-generated calls. To 
what extent would any new disclosure requirements, whether or not 
applied prospectively, create the risk of unwarranted liability that 
callers may face for practices that are currently compliant, but may 
not be going forward? Would retroactive changes frustrate consumers 
from receiving, and callers from placing, mutually beneficial 
communications that are wanted and expected? On the other hand, would 
bifurcating consent risk confusing consumers when they receive AI-
generated calls when they believe they withheld consent to receive AI-
generated calls? The Commission also seeks comment on the potential 
benefits of such disclosures to those consumers who have already 
provided their consent to be called. Would pre-call disclosures that 
AI-generated voice is used, as discussed below, mitigate the harm of 
receiving ``artificial voice'' calls to which consumers already 
consented, but may not wish to receive in the future?
    8. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential benefits and 
drawbacks of any new disclosures, made at the beginning of each AI-
generated artificial or prerecorded voice call, that AI-generated voice 
was used. Would it add value to consumers beyond the current 
requirement, which is simply that callers must disclose their identity 
when making an artificial voice or prerecorded call, and not 
specifically whether the call is an AI-generated call? Would consumers 
benefit from new disclosures that apply to ``AI-generated calls,'' but 
not to ``artificial or prerecorded voice'' calls outside the new 
definition? The Commission notes that its rules do not require pre-call 
disclosures about the technology used in artificial or prerecorded 
voice calls. Should the Commission consider different approaches that 
might better promote greater consumer awareness of AI-generated calls 
while minimizing any burdens such disclosures entail for smaller 
entities? In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether any 
specific categories or usage of AI-generated calls should be excluded 
from the pre-call consent or on-call AI-generated disclosure 
requirements. For example, the Commission proposes below to create an 
exemption for calls made by individuals with disabilities to facilitate 
their ability to communicate over the telephone network.
    9. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposed 
disclosure at the beginning of an AI-generated voice call should 
include a special tone, icon, badging, or other indication that is 
visual, auditory, or otherwise to the called party. If so, which means 
is the most effective and cost efficient to ensure that consumers are 
made aware of the use of AI-generated content on the call? Should the 
Commission require that callers provide consumers the option to opt out 
of AI-generated voice calls if a consumer wishes to continue receiving 
non-AI robocalls from a caller? If so, how should the Commission 
effectuate such an option in a way that minimizes the risk of abuse by 
requiring consumers to make multiple opt-out requests to stop unwanted 
calls? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other related 
issues in this context.

Promoting Access to Telephone Service by Individuals With Disabilities

    10. The Commission propose to exercise its authority under sections 
227(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act to exempt from the TCPA's requirements 
artificial or prerecorded voice calls made by an individual with a 
speech or hearing disability using any technology, including artificial 
intelligence technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such 
individuals to communicate over the telephone. The Commission does so 
to ensure that its protections against AI abuses do not deter 
development and use of AI-powered tools that enable people with 
disabilities to better use the telephone network. The Commission 
emphasizes that its proposed exemptions extend to the use of any 
technology that assists individuals with disabilities to communicate by 
artificial or prerecorded voice and are not limited to AI technologies. 
Consistent with its treatment of certain healthcare-related calls, the 
Commission proposes to exempt artificial or prerecorded voice calls 
made by individuals with speech and hearing disabilities who are using 
AI-generated voice when making an outbound telephone call in order to 
assist in communicating with a called party from the TCPA's consent and 
identification requirements.
    11. It is the Commission's view that this exemption would be 
consistent with Congress' and the Commission's emphasis on access to 
telecommunications services by persons with disabilities as an 
important national policy objective. In 1990, Congress enacted the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, which established the 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) program. The intent of section 
225, which governs telecommunications services for people who have 
hearing and speech disabilities, is ``to further the [Communication] 
Act's goal of universal service by providing to individuals with 
hearing or speech disabilities telephone services that are functionally 
equivalent to those provided to individuals without hearing or speech 
disabilities.'' In 1996, Congress recognized that, with the nation's 
``increasing dependence on telecommunications tools, people with 
disabilities remain unable to access many products and services that 
are vital to full participation in our society.'' Accordingly, Congress 
added section 255 of the Communications Act ``to amend this situation 
by bringing the benefits of the telecommunications revolution to all 
Americans, including those who face accessibility barriers to 
telecommunications products and services.'' In addition, the Commission 
has recognized the importance of accessibility, explaining that ``the 
federal government must promote innovative and affordable solutions to 
ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to 
communications services and that they do not bear disproportionate 
costs to obtain that access.''
    12. As discussed above, section 227(b)(2)(B) authorizes the 
Commission to adopt, by rule or order, exemptions

[[Page 73324]]

from the TCPA's requirements for artificial or prerecorded voice calls 
to residential telephone lines that are ``not made for a commercial 
purpose'' and for ``such classes or categories of calls made for 
commercial purposes'' that do not adversely affect the privacy rights 
of the called party and do not transmit an unsolicited advertisement. 
The Commission tentatively concludes pursuant to both these provisions 
that an exemption for the use of AI and other related technologies that 
assist individuals with disabilities to communicate by artificial or 
prerecorded voice over the telephone to residential telephone lines 
would promote the public interest in substantial ways by ensuring that 
beneficial uses of these technologies are not impeded by the TCPA's 
requirements. Consistent with the statutory requirement, the Commission 
also proposes that calls made under this exemption must not contain any 
unsolicited advertisement. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    13. Residential Telephone Exemption. Access to telecommunications 
services is an increasingly critical tool in our society with 
increasing numbers of people using such services to work from home, 
learn in educational settings, access healthcare, access government and 
emergency services, and keep in touch with family and friends. This is 
particularly critical for individuals with disabilities. In addition, 
the Commission finds no reason to believe that the privacy interests 
that section 227 is designed to protect will be adversely affected by 
this limited exemption. For example, the Commission does not expect the 
volume of such calls to be significant. Moreover, because such calls 
cannot contain unsolicited advertisements, the Commission predicts that 
most calls made to residential lines pursuant to this exemption will 
primarily be made to individuals who are often expecting them (e.g., 
friends, family). The Commission seeks comment on this view. Would the 
proposed exemption benefit persons with disabilities and encourage 
development of technologies that assist persons with disabilities in 
communicating by telephone? Could the exemption be abused, for example, 
by scammers who attempt to use those technologies to defraud or 
otherwise harm consumers? If so, how can the Commission modify the 
proposal to avoid such abuses?
    14. Wireless Exemption. As discussed above, section 227(b)(2)(C) 
authorizes the Commission to exempt from this the TCPA's restrictions, 
by rule or order, calls to a number assigned to a cellular service 
``that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions 
as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interests of the 
privacy rights. For similar reasons to those discussed above, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that the use of AI and other related 
technologies that assist individuals with disabilities to communicate 
by artificial or prerecorded voice in calls to wireless telephone 
numbers should not be impeded by the TCPA's requirements. The 
Commission therefore proposes to exempt such calls pursuant to the 
condition that they must not contain any telemarketing or 
advertisement. The Commission believes that compliance with this 
condition would not unduly impair the ability of individuals with 
disabilities to use the telephone network or impose burdensome 
compliance obligations. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    15. The statute requires that any calls to wireless telephone 
numbers that are exempted from the TCPA's restrictions be ``not charged 
to the called party.'' The Commission seeks comment on how this 
condition can be satisfied in the Commission's proposal. The Commission 
believes that it is unreasonable to expect individuals with 
disabilities to ascertain in every instance whether the called party is 
charged for an incoming call. As noted above, the TCPA authorizes the 
Commission to ``prescribe technical and procedural standards for 
systems that are used to transmit any artificial or prerecorded voice 
message via telephone.'' Could the Commission require or encourage 
wireless providers and others under this or other authority to ensure 
that these calls are not charged to the called party? Are there other 
alternative solutions that the Commission should consider? The 
Commission has concluded that the TCPA's ``not charged'' requirement 
precludes exempting incoming calls that count against the recipient's 
allotted minutes or texts. Given the substantial public interest 
considerations, should the Commission take a different view in this 
context? To what extent is the ``not charged to the called party'' 
condition a practical impediment to the use of the exemption in the 
current wireless marketplace? For example, to what extent are wireless 
consumers still charged for incoming calls? The Commission seeks 
comment on these and any other considerations relevant to its proposal.
    16. TRACED Act. The Commission tentatively concludes that the 
exemptions discussed above satisfy the relevant provisions of the 
TRACED Act. Section 8 of the TRACED Act amended section 227(b)(2) of 
the Communications Act to require that the Commission ensure that any 
exemption granted under sections 227(b)(2)(B) or (C) allowing callers 
to make artificial voice, prerecorded voice, or autodialed calls 
without consent include certain conditions. Specifically, section 8 
requires that any such exemption contain requirements 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.''
    17. The Commission proposes that the ``class of parties that may 
make such calls'' under the exemption is any individual with a speech 
or hearing disability that utilizes an AI or other technology to assist 
in communicating by artificial or prerecorded voice over the telephone. 
The Commission believes this class of individuals is sufficiently 
clear. The Commission seeks comment on whether it needs to broaden this 
class of parties to ensure that the Commission encompasses any other 
individuals with disabilities who make use of artificial or prerecorded 
voice technologies to communicate over the telephone. If so, how should 
the Commission define this class of parties? At this time, the 
Commission will not require that individuals demonstrate proof of such 
a disability, because the Commission finds that such a requirement 
would be potentially burdensome and a potential privacy invasion given 
the lack of any basis at this time to conclude that there are grounds 
for abuse. The Commission proposes that ``the classes of parties that 
may be called'' in this instance extends to calls made to parties for 
purposes that do not include unsolicited advertising or telemarketing. 
In this instance, the public policy goal of ensuring that individuals 
with disabilities are not encumbered with any impediments from 
telephone usage exceeds any concern regarding adverse privacy risks, 
which seem to be minimal in this context. The Commission seeks comment 
on this proposal.
    18. Lastly, the Commission tentatively concludes that limiting such 
calls to those that do not include unsolicited telemarketing 
establishes a functional limit on the number of such calls made in this 
context (i.e., individuals with hearing or speech disabilities 
utilizing artificial or prerecorded voice technologies on calls in 
which they are present and communicating) that is consistent with the 
objectives of promoting access to telephone service

[[Page 73325]]

by individuals with disabilities. The Commission tentatively concludes 
that ``the number of such calls that a calling party may make'' should 
not be a specific numerical limitation in this context because such a 
limitation would risk depriving individuals with disabilities of basic 
access to telephone service while necessitating that they track the 
number of such calls that they are making each day, an outcome 
inconsistent with national policy objectives and laws designed to 
promote such usage.
    19. The Commission seeks comment on these tentative conclusions, 
including any alternative means to satisfy the TRACED Act's 
requirements in a way that promotes access to telephone service without 
unduly burdening individuals with disabilities.
    20. Alternatives. As an alternative to creating an exemption for 
artificial or prerecorded voice calls made by an individual with a 
speech or hearing disability using any technology, including artificial 
intelligence technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such 
individuals to communicate over the telephone, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it can define ``artificial or prerecorded voice'' in 
a way that excludes from the requirements of the TCPA the use of 
technologies that are designed to assist individuals with disabilities 
to communicate by voice over the telephone network. The Commission 
notes that the TCPA does not define the terms ``artificial'' or 
``prerecorded voice.'' As a result, can the Commission define those 
terms in a way that would allow these types of calls by individuals 
with disabilities?
    21. In addition, do the Commission's obligations to ensure that 
telecommunications and advanced communications services and equipment 
be accessible and usable by people with disabilities authorize us to 
exclude positive uses of AI and other technologies that benefit 
individuals with disabilities from the TCPA's restrictions on the use 
of artificial or prerecorded voice messages? How would the Commission 
reconcile such an approach with the Commission's prior rulings in the 
Soundboard Declaratory Ruling confirming that the presence of a live 
agent on a call selecting the prerecorded messages to be played ``does 
not negate the clear statutory prohibition against initiating a call 
using a prerecorded or artificial voice'' and the AI Declaratory Ruling 
in which the Commission found that AI and other technologies that 
generate human voices fall within the TCPA. How could the Commission 
ensure any such approach does not create a loophole that could be used 
by telemarketers or bad actors to circumvent the TCPA's protections? 
The Commission seeks comment on these and other alternatives that might 
assist us in formulating a means to ensure that the TCPA's restrictions 
on robocalls do not inadvertently impede the ability of individuals 
with disabilities to use the telephone network.

Costs and Benefits

    22. The Commission seeks comment on the potential costs and 
benefits of taking any of its proposed regulatory measures to address 
the use of AI technologies. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether and to what degree the changes the Commission proposes here 
will improve consumers' ability to identify, manage, and benefit from 
the use of calls that contain AI-generated voices. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on any potential costs of its proposals on 
callers, including smaller entities, to disclose the use of AI-
generated technologies and honor requests not to make such calls to 
consumers who do not provide consent. The Commission seeks comment on 
these and any other considerations that may shed light on the potential 
costs and benefits of adopting its proposals.

Legal Authority

    23. TCPA. The Commission tentatively concludes that section 227 
provides us with legal authority to adopt the proposals. As noted 
above, the TCPA authorizes the Commission to make ``technical and 
procedural standards for systems that are used to transmit any 
artificial or prerecorded voice message via telephone.'' In addition, 
the legislative history contemplated the Commission's need for the 
flexibility to address future technologies that impact the TCPA's 
consumer privacy protections from unwanted robocalls.
    24. The TCPA also prohibits the use of an artificial or prerecorded 
voice message in calls to a residential or wireless telephone number 
absent the prior express consent of the called party or a recognized 
exemption. The Commission has recently confirmed that the TCPA's 
restrictions on the use of ``artificial or prerecorded voice'' 
encompass current AI technologies that resemble human voices and/or 
generate call content using a prerecorded voice. As a result, the 
Commission believes that the proposals set forth herein to disclose the 
use of AI-generated calls and exempt individuals with disabilities from 
the TCPA's prohibitions on artificial or prerecorded voice calls are 
authorized by the TCPA. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion including whether any other legal authorities such as those 
that govern the provision of communications services to individuals 
with disabilities may lend additional support to its tentative 
conclusion. Alternatively, is there any reason to conclude that these 
existing legal authorities do not provide the Commission with 
sufficient statutory authority to ensure that the use of emerging AI 
technologies, as the Commission proposes to define it, does not erode 
consumer protections under the TCPA?

Digital Equity and Inclusion

    25. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with our proposals. Specifically, the Commission seeks 
comment on how its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in 
diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of 
the Commission's relevant legal authority.

Notice of Inquiry

Real-Time Call Detection, Call Alerting, and Call Blocking Technologies

    26. The Commission seeks comment on the development and 
availability of technologies on either the device or network level that 
can: (1) detect incoming calls that are potentially fraudulent and/or 
AI-generated based on real time analysis of voice call content; (2) 
alert consumers to the potential that such voice calls are fraudulent 
and/or AI-generated; and (3) potentially block future voice calls that 
can be identified as similar AI-generated or otherwise fraudulent voice 
calls based on analytics. Specifically, what steps can the Commission 
take to encourage the development and deployment of these technologies, 
including to consumers regardless of their economic means or the type 
of telephone service to which they subscribe? Further, the Commission 
seeks comment on the privacy implications of call detection 
technologies that analyze the content of calls in real time to identify 
calls that are potentially fraudulent and/or feature AI-generated voice 
without the required

[[Page 73326]]

disclosure proposed above. To that end, the Commission asks whether the 
Commission should adopt rules governing the use of call detection, 
alerting, or blocking technologies to protect the privacy of both 
callers and called parties.
    27. The record highlights several examples of call detection and 
alerting technologies that can help detect scam calls or calls that use 
AI-generated voice based on real time content analysis of the incoming 
call. For example, Google announced it is ``testing a new call 
monitoring feature that will warn users if the person they're talking 
to is likely attempting to scam them and encourage them to end such 
calls.'' This technology will ``utilize Gemini Nano--a reduced version 
of the company's Gemini large language model for Android devices that 
can run locally and offline--to look for fraudulent language and other 
conversation patterns typically associated with scams. Users will 
receive real-time alerts during calls where these red flags are 
present.'' Other technologies under development seek to authenticate 
human voice as a method of thwarting calls featuring AI-generated 
voices, such as scam calls that do not disclose the use of AI. For 
example, OriginStory states it is developing a new technique that 
``authenticates the human origin of voice recordings at the point of 
creation and then embeds this authentication as a watermark or 
signature in the stream, establishing a chain of trust from the moment 
the voice is captured to when it reaches the listener.'' Microsoft's 
Azure Operator Call Protection is a data-based service offered to 
telephone service providers at the network level that ``detects 
potential phone scams, performs real-time AI-driven analysis of 
consumer phone calls, and alerts subscribers when they are at risk of 
being scammed.'' The same technologies capable of detecting scam calls 
or calls using AI-generated voice could potentially be programmed to 
block future calls that can be identified as similar based on 
analytics. How far along are these and similar technologies in 
development? Have they proven useful in protecting consumers? Are there 
other examples of these kinds of technologies in existence today or in 
development, including any capable of detecting AI-generated voice? To 
ensure that providers do not interfere with consumer privacy rights as 
part of AI detection efforts, the Commission emphasizes that they must 
continue to comply with existing Federal and state laws regarding 
lawful interception, including the Electronic Communications Privacy 
Act (ECPA), and that nothing discussed herein proposes to alter any 
prohibitions under existing statutes.
    28. Should the Commission act to further the development and 
deployment of such technologies? Are there legal, technical, and/or 
practical barriers to wide-scale deployment and adoption of such 
applications? Does the Commission have the statutory authority and 
technical expertise to address these barriers? To what extent do these 
technologies duplicate or complement STIR/SHAKEN and other caller ID 
authentication solutions? How do issues regarding IP interconnection 
across voice service networks impact the ability of providers to enable 
real-time monitoring of voice traffic using AI technologies? Will 
technologies that enable real-time monitoring of voice traffic require 
service providers to upgrade their network infrastructure? If so, how 
long and at what cost will it take providers to upgrade their networks? 
Do these technologies require new devices at potentially greater cost 
to consumers? Will these detection and alerting technologies be 
provided to consumers at an additional cost, thereby increasing the 
overall cost of voice services to consumers? How can the Commission 
ensure the benefits of these technologies are available to all 
consumers, including across the various mobile telephone platforms, as 
well as on landlines? For example, how do these technologies monitor 
robocalls in languages other than English? Should these technologies 
monitor languages based on population, subscriber preference, Census 
data, or some other appropriate metric? What role should industry 
standards play in the development and implementation of call detection 
technologies that analyze call content in real time such as those 
discussed above? Do these technologies risk blocking or inhibiting 
legitimate AI-generated calls, such as public safety calls, calls from 
people with disabilities using AI-enabled services, or other exempted 
calls? If so, how will they mitigate the inadvertent blocking of such 
calls and messages?

Privacy Implications of Real-Time Call Detection, Call Alerting, and 
Call Blocking Technologies

    29. While the AI-enabled call detection, alerting, and blocking 
technologies discussed above promise to be effective tools in 
protecting consumers from unwanted calls, including scam calls, the 
Commission believes that these tools pose significant privacy risks, 
insofar as they appear to rely on analysis and processing of the 
content of calls--which are very sensitive data--by application or 
device providers, who already have access to the personally 
identifiable information (PII) of their users. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment on the privacy implications of call detection, 
alerting, and blocking technologies. The Commission also seeks comment 
on whether Commission should consider requirements to protect the 
privacy of callers and called parties, and, if so, what such 
requirements should be. If the Commission adopts privacy requirements 
in this area, should the Commission rely on notice-and-consent 
principles, or should the Commission instead adopt substantive 
protections such as minimization requirements for data collection, 
purpose limitations for data processing, and categorical restrictions 
on sharing and disclosure?
    30. The Commission first seeks comment on how these technologies 
capture and analyze call content data and on any steps that developers 
and users of these tools can use or are already using to protect the 
privacy of both callers and called parties. How do these systems 
process call content data? Do these systems store call data on the 
device or at the network level? If so, for how long? Do these 
applications anonymize data while the data are being analyzed? How do 
they store such data, and do they share it with third parties? If they 
do share such data, for what purposes, and how do they ensure that 
third parties cannot use the data for extraneous or unrelated 
commercial purposes? Do providers of these technologies and 
applications make their data practices clear to consumers? Do they 
provide notice to the caller and rely on opt-out or opt-in consent, 
prior to their initiation? Do they provide notice and enable consent to 
called parties? The Commission also seeks comment on what rights are 
afforded to consumers with respect to any data collected? Can consumers 
view those data? Correct those data? Request destruction of those data? 
Are the data portable? Do these systems ensure malicious actors cannot 
access these data? To what purposes do entities that offer these 
applications and technologies currently process any data they collect? 
What are the valid or reasonably related purposes to which such 
entities should be permitted to process the collected data?
    31. The Commission also seeks comment on what Federal and state 
privacy laws already apply to the use of call detection, alerting, and 
blocking technologies, including the ECPA and state wiretapping and 
interception laws?

[[Page 73327]]

Do these laws address the privacy concerns identified above?
    32. To the extent commenters do not think that provider practices 
or existing laws are sufficient, the Commission next seeks comment on 
whether and how the Commission should address the privacy concerns 
discussed above. Starting with the traditional privacy principles of 
notice and consent, should the Commission adopt a rule requiring 
consent of the called party prior to analyzing any incoming calls? 
Should the caller be afforded notice and consent? If so, would this 
potentially frustrate the benefits of call detection, alerting, and 
blocking technologies, by allowing malicious actors to effectively veto 
their use? If not, what protections exist for non-malicious callers who 
have a legitimate privacy interest in not having the contents of their 
calls collected and processed by unknown third parties? What level of 
consent is appropriate for the called party and, to the extent 
applicable, the caller?
    33. The Commission also seeks comment on whether substantive 
privacy protections might be more appropriate in this area than notice 
and consent requirements. For example, should the Commission adopt 
rules that prohibit or limit to some degree any technology or 
application that analyzes the content of calls in real time from: (1) 
recording the content of the call; (2) retaining a transcript, 
recording, or meta data associated with the call; (3) disclosing the 
content of the call to any person or other party; and/or (4) using the 
analysis of the call for any other purpose than determining whether to 
identify and alert the recipient that a call is likely to be fraudulent 
or AI-generated? The Commission believes that rules such as these would 
be consistent with the privacy protections that parties developing AI-
enabled call analytic systems acknowledge are required under existing 
Federal law. Would such rules help prevent unscrupulous purveyors of 
similar call detection applications from violating consumers' privacy 
while also creating an additional layer of protection against privacy 
violations by virtue of the Commission's rulemaking and enforcement 
authority? How could the Commission craft such rules to ensure that 
they protect consumer privacy without disrupting existing services that 
combat robocalls? For example, would consent-based exemptions 
accomplish this goal?
    34. The Commission also seeks comment on how developers train the 
large language models that aid in call detection, alerting, and 
blocking technologies. What data sets do developers use to train the 
large model, and do they include call data? How do these applications 
ensure compliance with Federal and state wiretap laws, including states 
with two-party consent requirements? Should the Commission require 
standards to limit the use of personal information for training AI 
models used for call content analysis?
    35. As the Commission considers the necessity of such rules 
discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Communications Act grants the Commission the authority to adopt rules 
regarding the implementation of any AI-enabled call detection, 
alerting, or blocking technologies, including by adopting specific 
requirements to protect subscribers' privacy. Section 227(c) of the 
Communications Act directs the Commission to ``protect residential 
telephone subscribers' privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone 
solicitations to which they object.'' To do this, the Act directs the 
Commission ``to compare and evaluate alternative methods and procedures 
(including the use of electronic databases, telephone network 
technologies, special directory markings, industry-based or company-
specific `do not call' systems, and any other alternatives, 
individually or in combination) for their effectiveness in protecting 
such privacy right.''
    36. Finally, the Act directs the Commission to ``develop proposed 
regulations to implement the methods and procedures that the Commission 
determines are most effective and efficient to accomplish the purposes 
of this section.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether the call 
detection, alerting, and blocking technologies the Commission discusses 
constitute both a telephone network technology and an alternative 
method identified by the Commission that protects subscriber's privacy 
rights to avoid receiving objectionable telephone solicitations. Does 
the Commission have the authority to develop regulations related to the 
methods and procedures for the implementation of any AI-enabled call 
detection, alerting, and blocking technologies?

Other

    37. NIST AI Risk Management Framework. On January 26, 2023, the 
U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) released the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI 
RMF) ``to offer a resource to the organizations designing, developing, 
deploying, or using AI systems to help manage the many risks of AI and 
promote trustworthy and responsible development and use of AI 
systems.'' The Commission seeks comment on how this framework could 
further the Commission's understanding related to the risks surrounding 
the use of AI technologies to combat unwanted and fraudulent calls.

Procedural Matters

    38. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may contain new or 
modified information collection requirements subject to Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The Commission, as part 
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by the PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    39. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM. The IRFA is set 
forth in this document. The Commission invites the general public, in 
particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be 
filed by the deadlines for comments in the DATES section of this 
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them 
as responses to the IRFA.
    40. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-
but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in

[[Page 73328]]

the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) 
summarize all data presented and arguments made during the 
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the 
presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's 
written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the 
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her 
prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant 
page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be 
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown 
or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be 
written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec.  
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec.  
1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made 
available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations 
and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all 
attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment 
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their 
native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 
in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    41. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has 
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities by the policies proposed in the NPRM. Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the NPRM. 
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    42. The Commission initiates this proceeding to protect consumers 
from unwanted robocalls by proposing rules to address the emerging use 
of AI technologies to ensure that consumers continue to receive the 
protections afforded under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 
(TCPA). The TCPA sets forth specific requirements relating to the use 
of artificial and prerecorded voice messages in telephone calls. As the 
use of AI-generated calls becomes increasingly prevalent, it is 
critical that the Commission's rules ensure that consumer privacy is 
not eroded by the use of these emerging technologies. The proposed 
rules are therefore designed to ensure that the Commission's rules keep 
pace with technological changes while not impeding the beneficial uses 
of AI technologies. Specifically, the Commission proposes to define AI-
generated calls to ensure that consumers know when they receive an AI-
generated call; to adopt protections for consumers to ensure that 
callers adequately apprise them of their potential use of AI-generated 
calls when consumers consent to receive such calls; and to ensure that 
positive uses of AI that assist people with disabilities to use the 
telephone network can thrive without threat of TCPA liability.

Legal Basis

    43. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 
225, 227, 255, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 225, 227, 255, and 403.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    44. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' 
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the 
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is 
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
SBA.
    45. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. We, therefore 
describe at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could 
be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific 
size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 
million businesses.
    46. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    47. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 11,879 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that 
at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    48. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including voice 
over internet protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By 
exception,

[[Page 73329]]

establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as 
wireline carriers or fixed local service providers.
    49. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    50. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these service 
providers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    51. Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating call centers 
that initiate or receive communications for others--via telephone, 
facsimile, email, or other communication modes--for purposes such as 
(1) promoting clients products or services, (2) taking orders for 
clients, (3) soliciting contributions for a client, and (4) providing 
information or assistance regarding a client's products or services. 
These establishments do not own the product or provide the services 
they are representing on behalf of clients. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies firms having $25.5 million or 
less in annual receipts as small. According to U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017, there were 2,250 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of this number 1,435 firms had revenue of less than $10 
million. Based on this information, the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size 
standard.
    52. Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing. This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and 
data communications equipment. These products may be stand-alone or 
board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made by 
these establishments are central office switching equipment, cordless 
and wire telephones (except cellular), private branch exchange (PBX) 
equipment, telephone answering machines, local area network (LAN) 
modems, multi-user modems, and other data communications equipment, 
such as bridges, routers, and gateways. The SBA small business size 
standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing classifies businesses 
having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2017 show that there were 189 firms in this industry that operated for 
the entire year. Of this number, 177 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in 
this industry can be considered small.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities

    53. The NPRM seeks comment on issues that may alter the 
Commission's current information collection, reporting, recordkeeping, 
or compliance requirements for small entities. Specifically, the NPRM 
proposes and seeks comment on how to define AI in a way that is 
relevant to fulfilling the Commission's statutory responsibilities 
under the TCPA, requiring callers to disclose when a caller uses an AI-
generated voice, removing impediments to beneficial uses of AI to 
promote access to telephone service by individuals with disabilities, 
and requests information on additional call blocking and call alerting 
technologies that can assist consumers in avoiding unwanted AI-
generated calls or scams, including whether the Commission should 
require specific language for the disclosure, or audio-visual prompts 
that indicate an AI-generated voice is being used. Affected small 
entities may need to alter existing calling practices when making calls 
that contain an AI-generated voice to disclose to the called party that 
the call is using an AI-generated technology. Measures may have to be 
taken by small telecommunications providers or equipment makers to 
ensure that individuals with disabilities can use technologies to make 
calls that contain artificial or prerecorded voices without running 
afoul of the TCPA.
    54. The Commission invites comment on the costs and burdens of the 
proposals in the NPRM that may impact small entity callers. The 
Commission expects the information received in comments, including, 
where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission 
identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities 
that may result if the proposals and associated requirements discussed 
in the NPRM are ultimately adopted.

Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    55. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has 
considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives, (among others): (1) the establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such 
small entities.
    56. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several 
alternatives considered that may impact small entities. For example, 
the Commission proposes that callers disclose when a caller uses an AI-
generated voice on a call but seek comment on whether certain usage or 
categories of calls that contain AI-generated voice messages should be 
excluded from this requirement. This would avoid placing certain 
compliance burdens on small entity callers to make such disclosures, 
and minimize some economic impact for these entities. The Commission 
also seeks comment on alternative definitions of AI in this context to 
ensure that the scope of calls that fall under that definition is 
consistent with the privacy protections afforded under

[[Page 73330]]

the TCPA and whether it may inadvertently encumber technologies that do 
not fall within the TCPA. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
there are ways in which the telecommunications industry might assist to 
ensure that calls made by individuals with disabilities under the 
proposed exemption do not run afoul of the condition that such calls 
not be charged to the called party. The Commission seeks comment on 
alternative ways to accomplish this objective including voluntary 
efforts by industry or equipment manufacturers.
    57. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact and alternatives for small entities following review of comments 
and costs and benefits analysis filed in response to the NPRM. The 
Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final 
alternatives it considers, the final conclusions it reaches, and any 
final actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any 
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    58. None.

Ordering Clauses

    59. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1-4, 225, 227, 
255, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151-154, 227, 255, and 403 that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Notice of Inquiry is hereby Adopted.
    60. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry on or before 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 45 
days after publication in the Federal Register.
    61. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of 
Secretary, shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, 
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications 
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise 
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.

Subpart L--Restrictions on Telemarketing, Telephone Solicitation, 
and Facsimile Advertising

0
2. Amend Sec.  64.1200 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3)(iv);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (a)(3)(v) and adding ``; 
or'' in its place;
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(9)(v), and (a)(13);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
e. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (f)(9)(i)(A);
0
f. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (f)(9)(i)(B) and adding 
``; and'' in its place; and
0
g. Adding paragraphs (f)(9)(i)(C) and (f)(20).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  64.1200  Delivery restrictions.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vi) Is made by an individual with a speech or hearing disability 
using any technology, including artificial intelligence technologies, 
designed to facilitate the ability of such individuals to communicate 
using an artificial or prerecorded voice over the telephone and does 
not include or introduce an advertisement or constitute telemarketing.
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (v) Calls made by individuals with speech or hearing disabilities 
using any technology, including artificial intelligence (AI) 
technologies, designed to facilitate the ability of such individuals to 
communicate using an artificial or prerecorded voice over the 
telephone, provided that the calls must not include any telemarketing 
or advertising content.
* * * * *
    (13) Callers making an AI-generated call subject to the 
requirements contained in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section 
must provide clear and conspicuous disclosure that they intend to use 
AI-generated voice or text content on such calls when obtaining the 
prior express consent of the called party.
    (b) * * *
    (1) At the beginning of the message, state clearly the identity of 
the business, individual, or other entity that is responsible for 
initiating the call, and disclose whether the call uses an artificial 
intelligence-generated voice. If a business is responsible for 
initiating the call, the name under which the entity is registered to 
conduct business with the State Corporation Commission (or comparable 
regulatory authority) must be stated;
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) For AI-generated calls, that the caller intends to make use of 
AI-technology to generate voice or text content and the person signing 
the agreement specifically agrees to receive calls that include AI-
generated content.
* * * * *
    (20) The term AI-generated call means a call that uses any 
technology or tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a 
text using computational technology or other machine learning, 
including predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process 
natural language and produce voice or text content to communicate with 
a called party over an outbound telephone call.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-19028 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P