```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74184-74199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20176]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 64

[GN Docket No. 24-213; MD Docket No. 10-234; FCC 24-85; FR ID 240720]

Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database; 
Amendment of CORES Registration System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes and seeks comment on procedural measures that 
would require Robocall Mitigation Database filers to take additional 
steps to ensure the accuracy of submitted information, potential 
technical solutions for validating data, accountability measures to 
ensure and improve the overall quality of submissions in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database, and generally invites comment on any other 
procedural steps the Commission could require to increase the 
effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database as a compliance and 
consumer protection tool.

DATES: Comments are due on or before October 15, 2024, and reply 
comments are due on or before November 12, 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 above. 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).
     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 commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of 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.
    Accessible Formats. To request materials in accessible formats for 
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio 
format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), contact Erik Beith, Attorney 
Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained in 
this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele at 
(202) 418-2991.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM 
in GN Docket No. 24-213, MD Docket No. 10-234, released on August 8, 
2024. The complete text of this document is available for download at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-85A1.pdf.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: The NPRM may contain proposed new and 
revised information collection requirements. 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4),

[[Page 74185]]

we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding the NPRM initiates 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 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.
    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 available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    Illegal robocalls cause billions of dollars in consumer fraud, not 
to mention the losses suffered by consumers due to lost time and 
attention, and diminished confidence in the Nation's telephone network. 
In 2023, the Commission received approximately 96,500 complaints 
concerning unwanted calls, including illegal robocalls--more than any 
other issue. Protecting Americans from illegal robocalls remains the 
Commission's top consumer protection priority. With the NPRM we launch 
a proceeding to explore new initiatives intended to increase consumer 
protection, reduce unwanted calls, and increase accountability of non-
compliant providers.
    This initiative follows a series of Commission actions on multiple 
fronts to stem the tide of robocalls using every tool at our disposal. 
One such tool is the Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD or Database), a 
public database established by the Commission in 2021 to facilitate the 
implementation of our STIR/SHAKEN and robocall mitigation rules. 
Consistent with the Commission's efforts to expand both STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation and robocall mitigation requirements in recent years, 
all providers are now required to file certifications and robocall 
mitigation plans in the Robocall Mitigation Database, as well as 
additional information to assist the Commission with evaluating 
compliance with our rules. This makes the Robocall Mitigation Database 
an essential consumer protection tool that is not only relied upon by 
the Commission for our own enforcement activities, but by other Federal 
and state enforcement bodies, and by downstream providers, which are 
prohibited from accepting a provider's traffic if it is not listed in 
the Robocall Mitigation Database. It is, therefore, critical that the 
information submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database by providers 
be complete, accurate, and up-to-date.
    Given the importance of the Robocall Mitigation Database, we launch 
this proceeding to examine ways to ensure and improve the overall 
quality of submissions based on the collective experience of all 
stakeholders over the last three years. Specifically, we propose and 
seek comment on procedural measures that the Commission could adopt to 
promote the highest level of diligence when providers submit required 
information to the Robocall Mitigation Database, and technical 
solutions that the Commission could use to identify data discrepancies 
in filings--and require them to be corrected--before they are accepted 
by the system. At this time, we are not proposing or seeking comment on 
additional content requirements for Robocall Mitigation Database 
filings. The Commission adopted significant additional content 
requirements in March 2023 and required all providers to submit 
Robocall Mitigation Database filings that complied with those 
additional requirements by February 26, 2024. Those filings are 
currently under review. We propose and seek comment on measures to 
increase accountability for providers that submit inaccurate and false 
information to the Robocall Mitigation Database or fail to update their 
filings when the information they contain changes, as required by the 
Commission's rules. Lastly, we generally invite comment on any other 
procedural steps the Commission could require to increase the 
effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database as a compliance and 
consumer protection tool.

II. Background

    The Commission created the Robocall Mitigation Database in 2021 to 
effectuate provisions of the TRACED Act, which directed the Commission 
to require voice service providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN caller 
ID authentication framework on their IP-based voice networks by June 
30, 2021, subject to certain extensions due to undue hardship or 
reliance on non-IP infrastructure. The TRACED Act included two 
provisions for extension of the June 30, 2021, implementation deadline. 
First, it permitted the Commission to extend the compliance date for a 
reasonable period of time ``upon a public finding of undue hardship,'' 
and second, it directed the Commission to grant an extension to those 
providers that ``materially rel[y]'' on non-IP infrastructure. First, 
it permitted the Commission to extend the compliance date for a 
reasonable period of time ``upon a public finding of undue hardship,'' 
and second, it directed the Commission to grant an extension to those 
providers that ``materially rel[y]'' on non-IP infrastructure. Pursuant 
to these provisions, in 2020 the Commission granted three categorical 
STIR/SHAKEN implementation extensions on the basis of undue hardship 
to: (1) small voice service providers with 100,000 or fewer voice 
subscriber lines; (2) voice service providers unable to obtain the SPC 
``token'' necessary to participate in STIR/SHAKEN; and (3) services 
scheduled for section 214

[[Page 74186]]

discontinuance. Further, the Commission granted voice service providers 
a continuing extension for the portions of their networks that rely on 
technology that cannot initiate, maintain, or terminate SIP calls. The 
implementation extensions for services scheduled for section 214 
discontinuance ended on June 30, 2022, and the implementation 
extensions for non-facilities-based and facilities-based small voice 
service providers ended on June 30, 2022, and June 30, 2023, 
respectively. In 2023, the Commission granted an indefinite extension 
of time for small voice providers that are satellite providers 
originating calls using North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers on 
the basis of the TRACED Act's undue hardship standard. Under the 
framework established by the TRACED Act, any voice service provider 
that is granted a STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension pursuant to 
these provisions must implement ``an appropriate robocall mitigation 
program to prevent unlawful robocalls from originating on the network 
of the provider.'' To promote transparency, effective mitigation 
practices, and diligent enforcement of the Commission's rules, the 
Commission required voice service providers to submit certifications to 
the Robocall Mitigation Database concerning their STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation progress, and if they had not fully implemented STIR/
SHAKEN, a description of their robocall mitigation program, including 
``[t]he specific reasonable steps the voice service provider has taken 
to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic.'' Providers filing in 
the Robocall Mitigation Database were also required to submit 
additional information, including business names and addresses, and a 
point of contact for resolving robocall-mitigation related issues. The 
Commission made the certification data and robocall mitigation plans 
filed in the Robocall Mitigation Database publicly available on the 
Commission's website to facilitate inter-provider cooperation and the 
public's ability to understand providers' robocall mitigation 
practices.
    Since 2021, the Commission has worked to expand the scope of 
providers required to implement STIR/SHAKEN and comply with robocall 
mitigation requirements, and thus, the providers required to submit 
certifications and robocall mitigation plans in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. Today, all providers carrying or processing voice traffic--
voice service providers, gateway providers, and non-gateway 
intermediate providers--are required to file certifications and 
robocall mitigation plans in the Robocall Mitigation Database. The 
consequences for not doing so, or for filing certifications and 
robocall mitigation plans that do not comply with the Commission's 
rules, are severe. They may include the imposition of a Commission 
forfeiture and/or the removal of a deficient filing from the Database. 
The latter remedy effectively precludes the provider from operating as 
a provider of voice services in the United States, as the Commission's 
rules prohibit intermediate and terminating providers from accepting 
traffic directly from any provider that does not appear in the 
Database. This prohibition, which denies ``a service provider access to 
the regulated U.S. voice network if [the Commission] determines that 
the service provider's . . . robocall mitigation practices are 
inadequate,'' recognizes the importance of the information submitted to 
the Robocall Mitigation Database and its role as a tool for enforcement 
and industry self-regulation.

A. Content Requirements for Robocall Mitigation Database Submissions

    To start a filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database, providers 
must first obtain a business-type FCC Registration Number (FRN) via the 
FCC's Commission Registration System (CORES) and an FCC username and 
password. CORES is the system the FCC uses to facilitate the assignment 
of FRNs to all persons and entities seeking to do business with the 
Commission. An FRN is a unique 10-digit number assigned to a business 
or individual registering with the Commission that is used to identify 
the registrant's business dealings with the agency. Providers establish 
a CORES account and FRN to submit a new filing or manage existing 
filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Once a provider's FRN is 
selected in the Database, the entity name and business address 
associated with that FRN are automatically populated in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database certification form. These fields of the 
certification form are ``read only'' and may not be changed without 
changing the associated data in CORES.
    To complete the remainder of the Robocall Mitigation Database 
certification form, providers must manually enter additional 
information, including:
     Whether the provider has fully, partially, or not 
implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework in the IP portions 
of its network;
     Confirmation that all of the calls that it originates on 
its network are subject to a robocall mitigation program consistent 
with Sec.  64.6305(a), (b), and/or (c);
     Confirmation that any prior Robocall Mitigation Database 
submission has not been removed by Commission action and that the 
provider has not been prohibited from filing in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database by the Commission;
     Any other business name(s) currently in use by the 
provider;
     All business names previously used by the provider;
     Whether the provider is a foreign voice service provider;
     The name, title, department, business address, telephone 
number, and email address of one person within the company responsible 
for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues;
     The provider's role(s) in the call path;
     Whether the provider is eligible for any STIR/SHAKEN 
implementation extensions or exemptions;
     Information regarding the provider's principals, 
affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies;
     Information on any recent enforcement actions concerning 
illegal robocalls; and
     The provider's Operating Company Number (OCN), if it has 
one.
    Once the certification is complete, providers must then upload a 
PDF file containing the written description of their robocall 
mitigation programs. Providers that wish to designate a portion of 
their robocall mitigation program filing as confidential may upload 
both confidential (i.e., unredacted) and non-confidential (i.e., 
redacted) documents pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order 
adopted for Robocall Mitigation Database filings. Under the 
Commission's rules, all providers are required to develop robocall 
mitigation programs that include reasonable steps to avoid transmitting 
illegal robocall traffic, and include commitments to respond within 24 
hours to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, 
and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such 
entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use 
its service to originate calls. The Commission's ``reasonable steps'' 
standard requires that a robocall mitigation program `` `include[ ] 
detailed practices that can reasonably be expected to significantly 
reduce' the carrying or processing (for intermediate providers) or 
origination (for voice service providers) of illegal robocalls.'' 
Certain additional

[[Page 74187]]

requirements apply based on the role the provider plays in the call 
path. For instance, voice service providers must describe how they are 
meeting their existing obligation to take affirmative, effective 
measures to prevent new and renewing customers from originating illegal 
calls, and gateway providers and non-gateway intermediate providers 
must describe their `know-your-upstream provider' procedures designed 
to mitigate illegal robocalls. In addition, all providers must describe 
any call analytics systems they use to identify and block illegal 
traffic, including whether they use a third-party vendor or vendors and 
the name of the vendor(s).
    The Commission has not otherwise mandated that providers include 
specific measures in their mitigation plans, finding that providers 
require ``flexibility in determining which measures to use to mitigate 
illegal calls on their networks.'' At the same time, the Commission 
directed that providers must comply with the practices specified in 
their robocall mitigation plans and that their robocall mitigation 
programs will be deemed deficient if the provider knowingly or through 
negligence carries or processes calls (for intermediate providers) or 
originates (for voice service providers) unlawful robocall campaigns. 
Further, a robocall mitigation plan will be deemed facially deficient 
if it does not provide any information about the specific reasonable 
steps that the provider is taking to mitigate illegal robocalls. For 
example, robocall mitigation plans that only include a generalized 
statement that a robocall mitigation plan is in place or merely recite 
the Commission's rules for robocall mitigation will be deemed facially 
deficient. Providers that submit deficient robocall mitigation plans to 
the Robocall Mitigation Database and fail to cure those deficiencies 
are referred to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau for investigation 
and potential removal from the Database, after which all downstream 
providers will be prohibited from carrying their traffic.

B. When and How Robocall Mitigation Database Submissions are Filed

    Providers are required to submit Robocall Mitigation Database 
certifications and robocall mitigation plans pursuant to deadlines set 
and announced by the Commission. Providers are also required to update 
their submissions within 10 business days of any changes to required 
content. For instance, if the contact information provided for the 
individual within the company responsible for robocall mitigation 
efforts has changed since the provider submitted its certification and 
robocall mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database, the 
provider is required to update its submission to include the current 
contact information within 10 business days of that change.
    All Robocall Mitigation Database submissions are filed via a portal 
accessible on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov/robocall-mitigation-database. After entering all of the required content, the 
provider's submission must be electronically signed by an officer of 
the company who certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the 
information included in the submission is true and correct. The 
submission is then accepted by the system. Instructions to assist 
filers with completing their Robocall Mitigation Database submissions 
are available on the Commission's website, as well as other reference 
documents providing guidance to providers on what is required to comply 
with the Commission's rules. Any provider or member of the public may 
view submissions to the Robocall Mitigation Database via the 
Commission's website or download a list of them as a .CSV file.

III. Discussion

    The Robocall Mitigation Database is a critical tool in the 
Commission's efforts to ensure compliance with its STIR/SHAKEN and 
robocall mitigation rules and protect the public from the harms caused 
by illegal robocalling campaigns. Many stakeholders outside of the 
Commission also depend on the information in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database to make important decisions that directly impact consumers. 
Downstream providers use the information in the Database to determine 
whether they are permitted to carry traffic on their networks, and 
other consumer protection and enforcement bodies use the information to 
pursue their own investigations into suspected illegal robocalling 
activities under applicable laws. Information submitted to the Robocall 
Mitigation Database by providers must be accurate and complete, and the 
Commission's requirements for filing in the Database and related 
accountability measures must promote accuracy, thoroughness, and 
continued diligence.
    A review of filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database indicates 
that, among some providers, diligence is lacking. We have identified 
deficiencies ranging from failures to provide accurate contact 
information to failing to submit robocall mitigation plans that in any 
way describe reasonable robocall mitigation practices. While the 
Commission has acted to support the integrity of Robocall Mitigation 
Database information by removing deficient filings through enforcement 
actions and remains committed to doing so, there may be ways that the 
Commission could incentivize providers to avoid submitting deficient 
filings to the Database in the first instance through additional 
procedural steps, accountability measures, and technical validation 
solutions. In addition to improving the overall quality of submissions 
to the Robocall Mitigation Database, such measures may also deter bad 
actors that wish to evade our rules by deliberately submitting false or 
misleading information to the Database in an effort to ensure the 
traffic they send is carried by downstream providers.
    We initiate this proceeding to propose and seek comment on 
additional procedural and accountability measures for the Robocall 
Mitigation Database to make it as effective as possible for the 
providers and government entities that use it, and thus the consumers 
it was instituted to protect. Specifically, we:
     Propose to amend the Commission's rules to require 
providers to update information they have submitted to CORES within 10 
business days of any changes to ensure that the business name and 
address information automatically populated into Robocall Mitigation 
Database submissions from that system is current;
     Propose to require multi-factor authentication each time a 
provider accesses the Robocall Mitigation Database;
     Seek comment on requiring providers to obtain a unique 
Personal Identification Number (PIN) that must be provided before the 
Robocall Mitigation Database will accept a submission;
     Seek comment on requiring providers to remit a filing fee 
for submissions to the Robocall Mitigation Database;
     Seek comment on technical solutions that will scan 
Robocall Mitigation Database submissions, flag data discrepancies, and 
require providers to resolve such discrepancies before the submission 
is accepted by the filing system;
     Propose base and maximum forfeiture amounts for submitting 
inaccurate or false information to the Robocall Mitigation Database, or 
failing to update information that has changed within 10 business days, 
as required by the Commission's rules;
     Propose to authorize downstream providers to permissively 
block traffic from Robocall Mitigation Database filers

[[Page 74188]]

that have been given notice of facial deficiencies in their robocall 
mitigation plans and failed to correct those deficiencies within 48 
hours; and
     Seek comment on additional procedural steps the Commission 
could require to encourage providers to submit accurate and complete 
information to the Robocall Mitigation Database and CORES and keep that 
information current.
    We estimate that the gains--including reduced fraud, avoided 
aggravation, and enhanced consumer confidence--should far exceed any 
added compliance burdens. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of 
our proposals outlined below.

A. Measures To Improve the Quality of Robocall Mitigation Database 
Submissions

    In this section, we seek comment on procedural and technical 
measures to improve the overall quality of Robocall Mitigation Database 
submissions in order to make the Database more effective for all 
stakeholders who use it. First, we seek comment on any additional steps 
filers should be required to affirmatively take to ensure the accuracy 
of information submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database, and to 
ensure that such information remains accurate and up-to-date over time. 
Second, we seek comment on any technical solutions that the Commission 
could deploy to validate data in submissions and flag discrepancies 
before they are accepted by the Robocall Mitigation Database.
1. Procedural Steps To Improve the Accuracy of Robocall Mitigation 
Database Filings
    We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional 
procedural steps for Robocall Mitigation Database filings to improve 
and ensure the accuracy of information contained in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database. We believe that there is ample information in the 
Commission's rules, orders, public notices, filing instructions, and 
other materials to advise providers on what they must file in the 
Robocall Mitigation Database to comply with our rules. We now turn to 
explore ways to improve diligent adherence to those requirements by 
filers. We, therefore, seek comment on measures that will prompt 
providers to affirmatively verify that the information they submit is 
responsive to the Commission's legal requirements and factually 
accurate, and to incentivize compliance with the on-going requirement 
to keep information in the Robocall Mitigation Database current. In 
addition to the specific measures discussed below, we invite general 
comment on procedures that we could adopt that would achieve these 
goals.
    Requiring Filers to Update Information in CORES. We first propose 
adopting a rule to require providers to update any information 
submitted to CORES within 10 business days of any changes to that 
information. As noted above, a CORES account and FRN are required to 
file in the database. A user's FRN is uniquely associated with each 
Robocall Mitigation Database filing, and the entity name and address 
associated with this FRN in CORES are imported directly into the 
Database along with a user's FRN. This contact information, along with 
a taxpayer identification number (TIN), such as a Social Security 
Number (SSN) for individuals, or an Employer Identification Number 
(EIN) for businesses is entered by users when they create a CORES 
account and complete an FRN registration form. Currently, Sec.  1.8002 
of the Commission's rules, which governs obtaining an FRN, requires 
that information submitted by registrants, including the entity's name 
and address, ``be kept current.'' It does not, however, establish a 
deadline for submitting updates after a change in information occurs. 
Thus, information in CORES may be out of date at the time a provider 
submits a certification and robocall mitigation plan to the Robocall 
Mitigation Database, resulting in inaccurate information being imported 
into the Database.
    We therefore propose to require all entities and individuals that 
register in CORES to update any information required by the system 
within 10 business days of any changes, as is currently required for 
filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. We seek comment on the 
benefits and burdens of this proposal. We believe a requirement to 
update contact information promptly would not impose any significant 
costs on CORES users, which are already obligated to keep their 
information current under Sec.  1.8002, and that any incidental burdens 
are easily outweighed by the significant interests of the Commission 
and other stakeholders in obtaining accurate identifying information 
from the Commission's databases. This is particularly true given that 
other Commission databases beyond the Robocall Mitigation Database 
similarly make use of contact information imported directly from CORES. 
We seek comment on this view. Are there nevertheless any countervailing 
burdens that the Commission should consider in weighing this proposal? 
How should the Commission enforce such a requirement, if it were 
adopted? Should this proposed deadline apply to all entities 
registering for an FRN, or only those that must file in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database? Since Robocall Mitigation Database filers must 
obtain a business-type FRN in order to submit a certification, should 
we apply this requirement only to business-type FRNs, rather than 
individual FRNs? Are there reasons a longer duration of time may be 
necessary for individual FRN holders? Are there alternative proposals 
the Commission should consider to ensure the accuracy of information 
submitted to CORES, and by extension, other FCC databases that make use 
of information imported from CORES?
    Multi-Factor Authentication. We seek comment on whether to deploy 
multi-factor authentication functionality for the Robocall Mitigation 
Database and whether to require providers to use such technology in 
order to submit a filing to the Database. Multi-factor authentication, 
which requires use of multiple authentication protocols in order to 
grant access to an account--for example, a password and a one-time 
verification code--is more secure than authentication with a username 
and password alone. We note that the Commission's Office of Managing 
Director recently required all CORES users to undergo two-factor 
authentication each time a user logs into CORES. Under this system 
users are ``prompted to request a six-digit secondary verification 
code, which will be sent to the email address(es) associated with each 
username.'' The code must then be entered into CORES by the user before 
accessing their account. Would a more robust authentication system of 
this kind be beneficial for the Robocall Mitigation Database? Why or 
why not? If the Commission were to require multi-factor authentication 
for the Database, what type of authentication protocol should the 
Commission employ? For example, in addition to a password, should the 
Commission require use of a one-time verification code provided by an 
authentication app or physical security key? We tentatively conclude 
that, under applicable OMB policy, if the Commission adopts multi-
factor authentication for the Robocall Mitigation Database, we also 
will have to afford users the option to use ``phishing-resistant 
authentication'' methods. We seek comment on this understanding and on 
users' expectations regarding authentication methods. We also seek 
comment on the benefits and burdens associated with

[[Page 74189]]

different means of deploying such functionality.
    Requiring Filers to Obtain a PIN to File in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. In addition, or as an alternative to the multi-factor 
authentication methods discussed above, we seek comment on increasing 
accountability for the accuracy of information submitted to the 
Robocall Mitigation Database by requiring an officer, owner, or other 
principal of a provider (collectively, ``officer'') to obtain a PIN 
that must be entered before an Robocall Mitigation Database submission 
is accepted by the filing system. Currently, an officer is required to 
electronically sign a provider's Robocall Mitigation Database 
certification. By doing so, the officer declares that ``under penalty 
of perjury'' the information provided in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database submission is true and correct. As noted above, the provider's 
business name and address is imported from CORES, and contact 
information for an employee of the company responsible for robocall 
mitigation must be provided. An officer is not, however, required to 
provide their own direct contact information or to make more specific 
certifications with respect to their role in ensuring that the provider 
submits and maintains accurate information in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. We are concerned that this may lead to consultants and 
provider employees completing Robocall Mitigation Database submissions 
without sufficient diligence, and that an additional verification step 
by the responsible officer may be necessary to ensure that Robocall 
Mitigation Database certifications and robocall mitigation plans are 
submitted and kept up-to-date in accordance with our rules.
    We therefore seek comment on whether we should require the signing 
officer to submit additional information and certifications to obtain a 
PIN that must be used to submit an Robocall Mitigation Database 
certification. Specifically, we seek comment on requiring the officer 
to complete a form, separate from the filing in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database and prior to certification thereto can be submitted, that 
collects: (1) A non-P.O. box street address and telephone number for 
the location of the office where the officer does business, and a 
direct business email address for the officer; (2) a business address, 
telephone number, and email address for the provider's registered agent 
for service of process in the District of Columbia (or a certification 
that such an agent is not required by Sec.  1.47(h) of the Commission's 
rules); and (3) certifications, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 
Sec.  1.16 of the Commission's rules, that the officer:
     Is authorized to submit the PIN form, Robocall Mitigation 
Database certification, and robocall mitigation plan on behalf of the 
provider;
     Has personally reviewed the provider's Robocall Mitigation 
Database certification and robocall mitigation plan and verifies that 
the information provided in both is true and accurate;
     Verifies that the information in the PIN form is true and 
accurate;
     Understands that the provider is required to update the 
information submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database within 10 
business days of any changes, and that failure to do so could result in 
the provider's filing being removed from the Robocall Mitigation 
Database and additional penalties permitted under law, including a 
forfeiture as discussed in section B.1 below; and
     Understands that any false statements on the PIN form and 
in the Robocall Mitigation Database submissions can be punished by fine 
or forfeiture under the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 502, 503(b), and 
removal of the provider's filing from the Robocall Mitigation Database.
    By direct business email address, we mean a business email address 
associated with the officer individually and used by them to conduct 
business in their official capacity, rather than a general email inbox, 
such as ``[email protected],'' which is not tied to any 
specific individual(s).
    We tentatively conclude that we have authority to adopt this 
information collection under the provisions of the Communications Act 
cited herein. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and on 
whether requiring the submission of this information to obtain a PIN to 
file in the Robocall Mitigation Database will improve the accuracy of 
the information in the Database. In particular, we seek comment on 
whether such a system would dissuade inaccurate or inadequately 
reviewed filings, or filings by bad actors by: (1) increasing direct 
accountability by an officer for reviewing, understanding, and 
verifying the contents of a provider's filing; and (2) providing 
additional direct contact information that can be used in enforcement 
actions if the business information imported from CORES or robocall 
mitigation contact information submitted to the Robocall Mitigation 
Database is inaccurate or becomes out of date. We seek comment on the 
scope of this information collection and whether it is sufficient to 
achieve these objectives. Should we collect additional or different 
information and certifications, and if so, what? To the extent 
necessary, the Commission will make necessary changes to the applicable 
System of Records under the Privacy Act. Is there information that we 
could also collect to verify that the person completing the form is, in 
fact, an officer of a legitimate provider? Should we require that all 
filers, even those not required to under Sec.  1.47(h) of the 
Commission's rules, have a registered agent in the District of Columbia 
and report that information via this separate PIN form? We believe that 
doing so would aid in Commission investigations into bad actors that 
should be removed from the Database and for purposes of service of 
process. We seek comment on whether and how such a requirement would 
facilitate these or other goals.
    We seek comment on the benefits and burdens of such an information 
collection, and on any alternative approaches. What are the burdens and 
potential consequences of collecting this information? How could we 
mitigate these burdens? Are there, for example, confidentiality or 
privacy issues with collection of this information? Because the 
information that we propose to collect is about individuals in their 
official or business capacities, we expect that this information is low 
sensitivity, reducing the privacy risk associated with this proposed 
collection. We also anticipate that, relative to other Commission 
programs that collect personally identifiable information (PII) and/or 
Privacy Act records, fewer individuals, who generally are not members 
of vulnerable populations, will be required to submit this low-
sensitivity information to the database, further reducing the privacy 
risk. We seek comment on this analysis. We also note that our proposed 
requirement, discussed above, that filers update their information in 
CORES will help ensure the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and 
completeness of the PII and/or records that we are proposing to 
collect. Additionally, under the Federal Information Security 
Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), any information system that we would 
use to collect information and provide PINs would need to have 
applicable privacy and security controls to ensure the confidentiality, 
integrity, and availability of such information. We therefore 
tentatively conclude that the overall privacy risk associated with this 
collection of information would be low.

[[Page 74190]]

We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and the reasons for it. We 
also seek comment on whether the collection of this information would 
cause any undue delays for providers in submitting their filings.
    We seek comment on the method by which the Commission could collect 
this information and generate the PIN for use by the officer when 
submitting an Robocall Mitigation Database filing. We expect that this 
information collection would require the use of a platform accessed via 
the Commission's website that would allow the officer to complete a 
digital form and then generate the PIN. We seek comment on any such 
platforms or other PIN-generating solutions that are currently in use, 
including any that are currently employed by other Federal agencies. 
Are there other procedural issues we should consider? For example, 
should a provider be required to submit a new PIN form within 10 
business days if the officer leaves the company or any information on 
the form changes? Should we require providers to obtain a PIN each time 
they revise their filing (i.e., a unique PIN for each submission) or 
just once (i.e., a unique PIN for each filer)? In keeping with the two-
factor authentication protocol deployed recently for CORES, we believe 
that requiring a PIN for each submission would provide greater security 
benefits. We seek comment on this view.
    We also seek comment on whether to require all providers that have 
already filed in the Robocall Mitigation Database to submit the 
separate form we propose above as a prerequisite to obtaining a PIN, so 
that the Commission has the same information on file for all providers 
in the Database. We also seek comment on any procedural steps that 
would guard against bad actors submitting false information to obtain a 
PIN. Finally, we seek comment on delegating authority to the Wireline 
Competition Bureau, in consultation with the Office of the Managing 
Director, to take the steps necessary to implement any system for 
collecting the information required to generate and provide Robocall 
Mitigation Database filers with a PIN, to publish instructions for 
providers on how to use the system, and to establish additional filing 
requirements needed to achieve the objectives of the system.
    Requiring Providers to Remit a Filing Fee. We next seek comment on 
requiring providers to pay a fee when submitting filings to the 
Robocall Mitigation Database. Section 8(a) of Communications Act states 
that ``[t]he Commission shall assess and collect application fees at 
such rates as the Commission shall establish in a schedule of 
application fees to recover the costs of the Commission to process 
applications.'' In 2018, as part of the RAY BAUM'S Act of 2018, 
Congress revised the Commission's application fee authority by amending 
section 8 and adding section 9A to the Communications Act. Prior to the 
RAY BAUM'S Act, the Commission had limited authority to amend the 
application fee schedule, which was set out by Congress. The Commission 
was required to simply adjust these fees every two years to reflect 
changes in the Consumer Price Index; the Commission did not have the 
authority to make other changes to application fees or to add or delete 
fee categories. Pursuant to the requirements of the RAY BAUM's Act, the 
Commission has adopted a schedule of fees based on the cost of 
processing applications, with cost determined based on direct labor 
costs. The Commission uses time and staff compensation estimates to 
establish the direct labor costs of application fees, which are in turn 
based on applications processed by Commission staff found to be typical 
in terms of the amount of time spent on processing each type of 
application. In applying our statutory authority, we adhere to the goal 
of ensuring that our fees are fair, administrable, and sustainable. 
This is the same overarching set of goals we employ in the context of 
our regulatory fee collections. The application of our overarching 
program goals, however, must work within the language of the statute. 
Moreover, in administering the application fee authority, we are also 
mindful of other general limits of fee authority. While the Independent 
Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) no longer applies to the 
Commission, we are nevertheless cognizant of broader legal issues 
raised by user fee and/or regulatory fee precedent.
    We tentatively conclude that submissions to the Robocall Mitigation 
Database are ``applications'' within the meaning of the RAY BAUM's Act. 
The Commission has broadly construed the term ``applications'' to apply 
to a wide range of submissions for which filing fees are required, 
including tariff filings containing the rates, terms, and conditions of 
certain services provided by telecommunications providers. Following a 
period of public notice, a tariff filing is deemed accepted unless the 
Commission takes action, which can include suspension or rejection of 
the tariff filing by staff. We believe this process is analogous to 
Robocall Mitigation Database filings, which are accepted upon 
submission but may be subject to further action by the Commission, 
including removal from the Robocall Mitigation Database for failure to 
cure any identified deficiencies. Additionally, the application fee 
proposed here in some ways mirrors the fee charged for filing formal 
complaints and pole attachment complaints. In calculating the fee for 
such complaints, the Commission noted that staff must still review the 
complaint after its receipt ``for general conformance with the 
Commission's complaint rules to determine if it is accepted for 
adjudication.'' In response to a commenter's argument that the fee for 
formal complaints should be lower, the Commission explained that the 
fee being assessed also covers ``the costs of adjudicating such 
complaints.'' Thus, even after a complaint is filed and ``a letter to 
the parties [is sent] indicating that the filing has been accepted or 
rejected,'' Commission staff--like here--must still engage in a lengthy 
review process thereafter that involves ``significant work'' in order 
to adjudicate, i.e., process, the complaint. We thus believe that 
Robocall Mitigation Database filings may be deemed applications for the 
purposes of requiring a filing fee, and seek comment on this view. We 
note that in the 2020 Application Fee Report and Order (86 FR 15026, 
March 19, 2021), the Commission recognized that, as a result of the 
changes it made then and ``those made previously to implement the RAY 
BAUM's Act . . . with respect to regulatory fees,'' further revisions 
to the part 1, subpart G, Schedule of Statutory Charges and Procedures 
for Payment, may be required. Since the creation of the Robocall 
Mitigation Database, which occurred after the adoption of the 
Application Fee NPRM (85 FR 65566, October 15, 2020), the Commission 
has gained a fuller understanding of the costs involved in processing 
submissions thereto, and now proposes a filing fee consistent with 
those costs.
    Further, the Commission's review of Robocall Mitigation Database 
submissions requires a significant investment of labor hours that 
continues to increase. The original requirement for voice service 
providers to file certifications and robocall mitigation plans in the 
Robocall Mitigation Database resulted in more than 2,600 submissions. 
As noted above, the Commission has since expanded the scope of 
providers required to file in the Database and the information that 
must be filed. As a result, there are currently approximately 9,000 
filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database, each

[[Page 74191]]

comprising not only a certification form, but also a robocall 
mitigation plan that details the specific steps the provider is taking 
to mitigate illegal robocall traffic.
    Each of those submissions must be reviewed by Commission staff to 
determine if they comply with the requirements of the Commission's 
caller ID authentication and robocall mitigation rules. This compliance 
review process requires significant staff resources, including analysts 
to review each filing, attorneys to perform compliance assessments, and 
a supervisory attorney to oversee the process and coordinate the 
referral of any deficient filings to the Enforcement Bureau. We 
estimate that this process involves $100 per filing in costs. The 
Bureau estimates that each filing will require 40 minutes of analyst 
review at the GS-12 level; 20 minutes of attorney review at the GS-14 
level; and 15 minutes of attorney supervisory review at the GS-15 
level. The estimated total labor costs (including 20% overhead) for the 
analyst review (GS-12, step 5) of each filing is $43 (0.66 hours * 
$64.64 = $43). The estimated labor costs (including 20% overhead) for 
the attorney review (GS-14, step 5) for each filing is $32.95 (0.33 
hours * $98.84 = $32.95). The estimated total labor costs (including 
20% overhead) for the attorney supervisory review (GS-15, step 5) for 
each filing is $26.71 (0.25 hours * $106.85 = $26.71). The total labor 
costs per filing review is $102.66 ($43 + $32.95 + $26.71). Salary data 
is sourced from the Office of Personnel Management and include overhead 
costs based on 2,087 annual hours. Based on these hourly rates and the 
estimated time for processing each filing, the Bureau proposes that the 
filing fee is $100 per filing, and we seek comment on this 
determination. We therefore propose to add ``Robocall Mitigation 
Database Certification'' as a service requiring an application fee in 
Sec.  1.1105 of the Commission's rules, and to set that application fee 
based on this cost estimate. We seek comment on whether it is 
appropriate for the Commission to assess an application fee for 
Robocall Mitigation Database submissions based on these costs, and if 
not, the scope of costs that should serve as the basis for the fee, if 
any. In so doing, we remind commenters that our section 8 authority is 
distinct from the Commission's authority with respect to other 
collections. In particular, the Commission is required by Congress to 
assess and collect as an offsetting collection regulatory fees each 
year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal the amount 
of the Commission's Salaries and Expenses (S&E) annual appropriation. 
The Commission is also directed by Congress to recover, as an 
offsetting collection, against auction proceeds costs incurred, subject 
to an annual cap, in developing and implementing our section 309(j) 
spectrum auctions program. Both such collections are deposited with the 
U.S. Treasury and credited to the Commission's account. For more 
information about the Commission's collections and budgetary authority, 
the Commission's annual financial statement and budget estimates for 
Congress provide helpful material. Application fees collected by the 
Commission are deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. 
Thus, while the determination of the fee amount will be based on cost, 
the collected fees are not used to fund Commission activities. In 
crafting comments, we ask that commenters explain whether their 
proposals are supported by the statute.
    In addition, although not a basis for proposing a fee for Robocall 
Mitigation Database filings, we believe that requiring providers to 
submit a fee may have collateral public interest benefits, including 
(1) discouraging filings by bad actors by requiring them to use a 
traceable payment method; and (2) incentivizing better filings by 
requiring entities to incur a nominal expense upon filing or refiling, 
should they be removed from the Database for noncompliance. We seek 
comment on these beliefs.
    We seek comment on when the Commission should collect the fee. 
Should they be collected only with initial filings or also when filings 
are updated, given that Commission staff will need to re-review the 
updated filings? We note that currently, there is no requirement that 
providers refile in the Database, outside of a change in the underlying 
information contained in the filing, or a change in the Commission's 
Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements necessitating 
providers to resubmit their filings. Should the fee be collected from 
existing filers, and if so, under what circumstances--e.g., when a 
provider refiles to update their information? Should the fee be 
collected if a provider refiles after being removed from the Robocall 
Mitigation Database pursuant to an enforcement action? Would assessing 
a refiling fee deter providers, particularly smaller providers, from 
updating their policies and procedures? We seek comment on these and 
any other procedural matters relevant to the collection of a filing fee 
for the Robocall Mitigation Database.
    Red-Light Rule. Finally, we seek comment on whether to apply the 
Commission's ``red-light'' rule to Robocall Mitigation Database 
filings. Under the red-light rule, the Commission will not process 
applications and other requests for benefits by parties that owe non-
tax debt to the Commission. In the context of our rules implementing 
the Debt Collection Improvement Act, the Commission has noted some 
filings with the Commission go into effect immediately ``thus 
precluding a check to determine if the filer is a delinquent debtor 
before the request goes into effect.'' In such situations, the 
Commission has the ability to take appropriate action after the fact 
for noncompliance with any of the Commission's rules. In the context of 
filings to the Commission's Intermediate Provider Registry, which 
similarly ``make[s] registrations immediately effective upon receipt,'' 
the Commission determined that ``any applicable red-light check will be 
conducted after intermediate provider registration; appropriate action, 
if any, will be taken against intermediate providers who are later 
discovered to be delinquent debtors, including de-registration.'' We 
seek comment on whether to apply such an approach to Robocall 
Mitigation Database filings, and on any alternative approaches to 
conducting a red-light check for Database filers.
2. Availability and Use of Data Validation Tools
    We seek comment on technological and marketplace innovations that 
the Commission could employ to validate data entered into Robocall 
Mitigation Database filings and require filers to take a more proactive 
role in ensuring that accurate and complete information is submitted to 
the Database in the first instance. Specifically, we seek comment on 
software and other technical solutions that would cross-reference 
addresses and other contact details submitted by filers against other 
data sources and flag actual or potential discrepancies for filers to 
resolve. What tools could be used to cross-reference data entered into 
Robocall Mitigation Database certifications against reliable external 
sources and flag discrepancies, such as confirming the validity of 
address information submitted to the RMD against a United States Postal 
Service (USPS) database? For example, the USPS offers several web-based 
tools including an API for ``Address Validation/Standardization.'' How 
do the tools work and how have they been integrated into systems to 
prompt users to confirm the validity of the

[[Page 74192]]

information being entered into the system and correct any errors? What 
are the costs of integrating such tools into a system, and what are the 
technical and legal requirements for doing so? For example, we note 
that establishing a ``matching program'' with another Federal or non-
Federal entity requires entering into a written matching agreement 
under the computer matching provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. 
However, we tentatively conclude that the validation of filers to the 
Robocall Mitigation Database would not qualify as a matching program 
since the purpose of such validation does not relate to Federal 
benefits programs. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Would 
integrating such tools into the Robocall Mitigation Database raise any 
legal, privacy, or policy concerns? We note, for instance, that the 
applicable system of records notice permits disclosures, as a routine 
use, to non-Federal personnel, including contractors and other vendors, 
and specifically ``identity verification service[ ]'' providers. While 
information submitted by providers to the Robocall Mitigation Database 
is generally public, providers may request confidential treatment of 
information included in their robocall mitigation plans. Would allowing 
a data validation tool to cross-reference data from Robocall Mitigation 
Database filings against an external data source raise concerns about 
protecting confidential or proprietary information? Are there ways to 
mitigate any such concerns?
    We seek comment on whether the Commission should prevent a filing 
from being submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database if any 
technical validation tools employed flag a data discrepancy and the 
filer fails to resolve that discrepancy. For example, if the Commission 
were to employ a technical solution for verifying all or part of an 
address, and the provider does not or cannot submit an address that can 
be validated by the solution, should the filing be provisionally 
rejected until the provider finds a way to resolve the discrepancy? Or, 
should the filing be accepted by the system but flagged as an internal 
warning to the Commission that the filing should be prioritized for 
compliance review and enforcement? Is there a middle ground that would 
allow the system to hold the filing containing the unvalidated address 
while the provider seeks to resolve the discrepancy through other means 
with Commission staff, e.g., through the manual submission of documents 
that corroborate the submitted address? We seek comment on the benefits 
and burdens of employing a technical approach to Robocall Mitigation 
Database data validation, and on how the Commission should seek to 
integrate such tools into its review of Robocall Mitigation Database 
filings.

B. Increased Consequences for Submitting False or Inaccurate 
Information to the Robocall Mitigation Database

1. Establishing Forfeiture for Submitting Inaccurate or False 
Certification Data
    We propose to establish a separate base forfeiture amount for 
submitting false or inaccurate information to the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. In the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order (88 FR 
40096, June 21, 2023), the Commission found that Robocall Mitigation 
Database filings are Commission authorizations. The Commission may 
impose a forfeiture against any person found to have willfully or 
repeatedly failed to comply substantially with the terms and conditions 
of any authorization issued by the Commission. In the Fifth Caller ID 
Authentication Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) (87 FR 
42670, July 18, 2022), the Commission proposed to ``impose the highest 
available forfeiture for failures to appropriately certify in the 
Robocall Mitigation Database.'' We now propose a base forfeiture of 
$10,000 for each violation for filers that submit false or inaccurate 
information to the Robocall Mitigation Database. The Commission has set 
the base forfeiture for failure to file required forms or information 
at $3,000. We tentatively conclude that submitting false or inaccurate 
information to the RMD warrants a significantly higher penalty, and 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion. What are the benefits to 
this approach? Would a higher or lower base forfeiture amount be more 
appropriate? Alternatively, we propose to impose the statutory maximum 
forfeiture amount allowable under section 503 of the Communications Act 
for submitting false or inaccurate information to the Robocall 
Mitigation Database. The Commission has set the statutory maximum as 
the base forfeiture for violations of Sec.  1.17 of our rules related 
to misrepresentation and lack of candor in investigatory or 
adjudicatory matters. Is submitting false or inaccurate information to 
the RMD similar to the Commission's misrepresentation and lack of 
candor rules to justify the highest possible penalty? What are the 
benefits and drawbacks to this alternative approach? We seek comment on 
these proposals.
    For either proposal, should we consider each instance of false or 
inaccurate information a single violation or a continuing violation for 
each day the false information remains in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database? Are there particular aggravating or mitigating factors we 
should take into consideration when determining the amount of a 
forfeiture penalty? Or are the aggravating and mitigating factors set 
forth in our rules sufficient? Should we use the same maximum 
forfeiture regardless of whether the violator is a common carrier or 
not? Currently, common carriers may be assessed a maximum forfeiture of 
$2,449,575 for a continuing violation, while entities not explicitly 
mentioned in section 503 of the Communications Act may only be assessed 
a maximum forfeiture of $183,718 for a continuing violation. In the 
Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, the Commission found 
it should not impose a higher maximum penalty on common carriers for 
violations of the mandatory blocking rules. Should we take a similar 
approach here? Are there any practical or legal considerations? We seek 
comment on these proposals.
    Finally, we propose to find that we can impose a forfeiture on 
filers that fail to update information that has changed in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database within 10 business days. All filers in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database are required to update their filings within 10 
business days if any information they are required to submit has 
changed. We propose a base forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to update 
information within 10 business days. We propose treating it as a 
continuing violation for every day the inaccurate information remains 
in the Robocall Mitigation Database, with a maximum forfeiture of 
$24,496 for each day of the continuing violation up to the statutory 
maximum of $183,718. We seek comment on these proposals. Should we 
establish separate base and maximum forfeiture amounts for failing to 
update a filing within 10 business days? Should the violation be a 
single violation or a continuing violation for each day the non-updated 
information remains in the Robocall Mitigation Database? If it is a 
continuing violation, what should the maximum forfeiture for the 
continuing violation be?
2. Authorizing Permissive Blocking for Facially Deficient Filings
    We next propose to authorize downstream providers to permissively 
block traffic by Robocall Mitigation Database filers that have been 
given notice that their robocall mitigation plans are facially 
deficient and that fail

[[Page 74193]]

to correct those deficiencies within 48 hours. We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    The Commission's rules currently require downstream providers to 
refuse traffic from providers that are not in the Robocall Mitigation 
Database. This means that when a provider is removed from the Database, 
it is effectively precluded from operating as a provider of voice 
services in the United States. For this reason, the Commission has 
recognized that removal of Robocall Mitigation Database submissions has 
severe consequences and is arguably equivalent to revoking a license, 
and thus has adopted notice and opportunity to cure procedures before 
removal of filings from the Robocall Mitigation Database consistent 
with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). For most filing 
deficiencies, the Commission follows a three-step process for removal, 
whereby:

    (1) the Wireline Competition Bureau contacts the provider, 
notifying it that its filing is deficient, explaining the nature of 
the deficiency, and providing 14 days for the provider to cure the 
deficiency; (2) if the provider fails to rectify the deficiency, the 
Enforcement Bureau releases an order concluding that a provider's 
filing is deficient based on the available evidence and directing 
the provider to explain, within 14 days, `why the Enforcement Bureau 
should not remove the Company's certification from the Robocall 
Mitigation Database' and giving the provider a further opportunity 
to cure the deficiencies in its filing; and (3) if the provider 
fails to rectify the deficiency or provide a sufficient explanation 
why its filing is not deficient within that 14-day period, the 
Enforcement Bureau releases an order removing the provider from the 
Robocall Mitigation Database.

    In the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, however, 
the Commission recognized that the failure to submit a robocall 
mitigation plan within the meaning of our rules constitutes a facial 
deficiency that warrants an expedited removal process. A robocall 
mitigation plan is facially deficient if it fails to submit any 
information regarding the ``specific reasonable steps'' the provider is 
taking to mitigate illegal robocalls. In such cases, the Commission 
found that providers have ``willfully'' violated its Robocall 
Mitigation Database filing rules and an expedited removal process is 
therefore warranted. Under this two-step expedited procedure for 
removing a facially deficient certification, the Enforcement Bureau 
will: (1) issue a notice to the provider explaining the basis for its 
conclusion that the certification is facially deficient and providing 
an opportunity for the provider to cure the deficiency or explain why 
its certification is not deficient within 10 days; and (2) if the 
deficiency is not cured or the provider fails to establish that there 
is no deficiency within that 10-day period, issue an order removing the 
provider from the Database.
    We seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional 
measures to protect consumers where submissions to the Robocall 
Mitigation Database demonstrate willful violations of the Commission's 
rules. Specifically, we propose to allow downstream providers to 
permissively block traffic from providers that have submitted facially 
deficient robocall mitigation plans beginning 48 hours after the agency 
issues the notice of facial deficiency and continuing until either the 
deficiency is cured or the provider's certification is removed from the 
Robocall Mitigation Database, which would trigger the mandatory 
blocking requirement. We propose to do so through a three step process: 
(1) a notice would be issued to the provider that its robocall 
mitigation plan is facially deficient because it fails to describe the 
specific reasonable steps that the provider is taking to avoid carrying 
and transmitting illegal robocalls; (2) the provider would be allowed 
48 hours to cure this facial deficiency by uploading a robocall 
mitigation plan that sufficiently describes its mitigation practices; 
and (3) if it fails to do so, the Wireline Competition Bureau would 
apply a flag to the facially deficient filing in the Robocall 
Mitigation Database to inform other providers that they may 
permissively block traffic from that provider after providing notice to 
the Commission that they intend to do so.
    We view this process to be similar to that authorized when the 
Commission sends cease-and-desist letters pursuant to Sec.  
64.1200(k)(4) of our rules, which states that a provider may, without 
liability, block voice calls or traffic from an originating or 
intermediate provider that has been notified by the Commission but 
fails to take steps to mitigate or prevent its network from being used 
to originate illegal calls. Under this rule, a provider must, prior to 
initiating blocking, provide the Commission with notice and a brief 
summary of the basis for its determination that the originating or 
intermediate provider has met one of these two conditions for blocking.
    In the context of the Robocall Mitigation Database, the flag 
applied to the filing would constitute notice that the provider has 
failed to remedy a facial deficiency in its filing within 48 hours and 
that downstream providers may block traffic from that provider if they 
submit a notice to the Commission that they intend to do so for the 
reason stated in the notice. We believe that there are equivalencies 
between the context in which the Commission issues cease-and-desist 
letters pursuant to Sec.  64.1200(k)(4) of the Commission's rules and a 
willful failure to submit the required description of a provider's 
robocall mitigation practices in the Robocall Mitigation Plan. We seek 
comment on this belief. In the former, the Enforcement Bureau has found 
evidence that the provider has originated or transmitted illegal 
robocalls (e.g., traceback data). The willful violation of the 
Commission's rules requiring providers to describe the steps they are 
taking to avoid carrying and transmitting illegal robocalls supports a 
presumption that no such steps are being taken and that the provider is 
doing nothing to stop illegal traffic as required by our rules.
    We seek comment on this view and whether applying the three-step 
process for permissive blocking proposed above in the context of 
facially deficient Robocall Mitigation Database filings is warranted. 
Are there considerations that apply when the Commission issues cease-
and-desist letters pursuant to Sec.  64.1200(k)(4) of the Commission's 
rules that do not apply in the context of the Robocall Mitigation 
Database? For instance, is it significant that in the context of Sec.  
64.1200(k)(4) cease-and-desist letters, the Enforcement Bureau has 
evidence that illegal robocalls have actually been transmitted, whereas 
here, the evidence would be that the provider has willfully failed to 
describe the reasonable steps it is taking to mitigate illegal traffic? 
If commenters argue that is not a sufficient showing to authorize 
permissive blocking from a provider that has willfully violated the 
Commission's robocall mitigation rules, what showing would be 
sufficient to authorize permissive blocking, if any?
    Is 48 hours an appropriate amount of time to allow a provider with 
a facially deficient plan to cure the deficiency to avoid permissive 
blocking, or should more or less time be allowed prior to opening the 
window for permissive blocking? Should the new rule include a safe 
harbor from liability under the Communications Act or the Commission's 
rules for providers that engage in permissive blocking under this new 
rule if they notify the Commission that they intend to do so, as under 
Sec.  64.1200(k)(4)? What information should be included in a notice to 
the Commission that a provider intends to permissively block traffic 
from another provider? Should

[[Page 74194]]

they simply state that they intend to block traffic from the provider 
that has been flagged by the Commission due to its facially deficient 
robocall mitigation plan, or should additional information be required? 
Should the new rule also address situations where the facial deficiency 
is cured after the Wireline Competition Bureau applies a flag? In such 
situations, we propose that the Wireline Competition Bureau would take 
down the flag applied to the Robocall Mitigation Database filing and 
notify any providers that have commenced permissive blocking to cease 
such blocking. We seek comment on this approach and whether our rules 
should require providers to cease permissive blocking within a 
specified period of time. If so, what is an appropriate timeframe?
    What are the risks to legitimate providers, and their customers, of 
authorizing permissive blocking in the context of facially deficient 
robocall mitigation plans submitted to the Robocall Mitigation 
Database, and do those risks outweigh the public interest benefits of 
enabling providers to decline traffic from providers that have 
demonstrated a willful disregard for their duty to mitigate illegal 
robocalls without penalty under our rules? What are the costs of 
authorizing permissive blocking in this context, and do the public 
interest benefits outweigh those costs? To the extent commenters argue 
that the risks and costs of the proposed permissive blocking process 
are high, is there a way to modify the process to minimize those risks 
and costs, or to otherwise improve it in a manner that appropriately 
balances the public interest objective of protecting consumers from 
illegal traffic against potential burdens to legitimate providers? We 
invite comment on these or any other points the Commission should 
consider when assessing the merits of our permissive blocking proposal.
    Scope of Facial Deficiencies. As stated above, we propose to limit 
any permissive blocking measure to circumstances where the robocall 
mitigation plan submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database is 
facially deficient, versus circumstances that require the Commission to 
make a qualitative judgment about the sufficiency of the measures 
described in the plan. In the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and 
Order, the Commission found it was ``not practical to provide an 
exhaustive list of reasons why a filing would be considered `facially 
deficient,' '' but provided several examples, including ``where the 
provider only submits: (1) a request for confidentiality with no 
underlying substantive filing; (2) only non-responsive data or 
documents (e.g., a screenshot from the Commission's website of a 
provider's [FRN] data or other document that does not describe robocall 
mitigation efforts); (3) information that merely states how STIR/SHAKEN 
generally works, with no specific information about the provider's own 
robocall mitigation efforts; or (4) a certification that is not in 
English and lacks a certified English translation.'' We seek comment on 
whether there are additional examples of robocall mitigation plan 
deficiencies that would rise to the level of willful violations of the 
Commission's robocall mitigation rules within the meaning of section 
9(b) of the APA. While the Commission has not set a particular format 
or minimum requirements for robocall mitigation plans, understanding 
the value of allowing providers flexibility to develop robocall 
mitigation programs that are specific to their networks, are there 
factors short of a complete failure to describe a provider's specific 
robocall mitigation practices that could render a mitigation plan 
facially deficient? For instance, are there any omissions that should 
universally render any robocall mitigation plan filed by any provider 
deficient, such that the Commission should adopt a standard that a 
failure to address that subject constitutes a willful violation of our 
rules? Is there a level of brevity that clearly falls below the 
requirement to describe specific reasonable steps being taken by the 
provider? While we do not intend to define a specific standard for 
facial deficiency, we do seek comment on whether there are any other 
bright line circumstances to which the standard should be applied 
generally and for the purposes of the permissive blocking process 
proposed above.
    Delegation of Authority. Should the Commission authorize permissive 
blocking when a provider submits a facially deficient robocall 
mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database, we propose to 
delegate authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to design the 
permissive blocking system, including the process for issuing 
notifications to providers that their robocall mitigation plan is 
facially deficient, the contents of that notice, the procedures for 
allowing the providers to remedy the deficiency by uploading a robocall 
mitigation plan that describes their robocall mitigation practices, the 
mechanism for applying a flag to the Robocall Mitigation Database 
filing of any provider that fails to do so within 48 hours, the process 
for collecting notifications from downstream providers that they intend 
to block traffic from the flagged provider, the content requirements 
for such notifications, and the process for removing a flag and 
notifying blocking providers in the event that a provider cures its 
facially deficient filing after a flag has been applied. We propose to 
delegate authority to the Wireline Competition Bureau to make any 
necessary changes to the Robocall Mitigation Database to implement 
these processes and direct the Bureau to release a public notice 
providing updated instructions and training materials regarding any 
relevant changes to the Database. We seek comment on this approach.

IV. Legal Authority

    We propose to adopt the foregoing obligations in part pursuant to 
the legal authority relied upon by the Commission in prior caller ID 
authentication and call blocking orders. We propose to rely upon 
sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Act, the Truth in Caller ID 
Act, and section 4 of the TRACED Act to authorize downstream providers 
to permissively block traffic by facially deficient Robocall Mitigation 
Database filers that have failed to correct those deficiencies within 
48 hours after notice, and to require corporate officers to obtain a 
PIN before filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
    We propose to rely on sections 501, 502, and 503 of the Act to 
establish forfeiture amounts for submitting inaccurate or false 
certification data to the Robocall Mitigation Database. We propose to 
rely on our authority under section 8 of the Act to add Robocall 
Mitigation Database filings to the Commission's Schedule of Application 
Fees. We believe the Commission has ample authority to adopt the 
foregoing obligations related to the Robocall Mitigation Database, as 
well as any related administrative enhancements pertaining to CORES. We 
seek comment on this view and whether there are any alternative sources 
of authority that we should consider.
    Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people 
of color and others who have been historically underserved, 
marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and 
inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and 
benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
discussed herein. We define the term ``equity'' consistent with

[[Page 74195]]

Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, 
such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, 
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; 
members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 
and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live 
in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent 
poverty or inequality. Specifically, we seek comment on how our 
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility.

V. Procedural Matters

    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 possible/
potential impact of the rule and policy changes contained in the NPRM. 
The IRFA is set forth in this document.
    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 
from the policies and rules 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 
provided on the first page of 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 IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    In order to continue the Commission's work of protecting American 
consumers from illegal calls, the NPRM seeks comment on ways to ensure 
and improve the overall quality of submissions to the Robocall 
Mitigation Database (RMD). In its review of filings by providers in the 
RMD, the Commission staff noted a lack of information ranging from a 
failure to provide accurate contact information for employees 
responsible for completing certifications of robocall mitigation 
practices, to failing to submit robocall mitigation plans with 
sufficient detail. The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on measures to 
increase accountability for providers that submit inaccurate and false 
information to the RMD and fail to update their filings when the 
information they contain changes, as required by the Commission's 
rules. The NPRM also invites comment on any other procedural steps the 
Commission could require to increase the RMD's effectiveness as a 
compliance and consumer protection tool.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 
201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), and 303(r) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 
227b, 251(e), and 303(r).

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

    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, 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.
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our 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.
    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.
    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, we estimate that at least 
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    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, 
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.

[[Page 74196]]

    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.
    Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. 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 fixed local exchange service providers. 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.
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. 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 in this industry that operated 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 1,212 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses 
specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these 
services include several types of competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. 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 3,378 
providers that reported they were competitive local service providers. 
Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 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.
    Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. 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 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a ``small cable 
operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through an 
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all 
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity 
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, 
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. 
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system 
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard. 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 in this industry that 
operated 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 90 providers that reported they were

[[Page 74197]]

engaged in the provision of other toll services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 87 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.
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA 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 in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that 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.
    Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed 
a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 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 207 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 
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.
    Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a 
small business size standard specifically for Toll Resellers. 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except 
satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
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 457 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of toll services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 438 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.
    Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest 
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The 
Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged 
in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. MVNOs 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 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 62 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of prepaid 
card services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 61 
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.
    All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving

[[Page 74198]]

telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet 
services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or VoIP services, via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms 
with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of 
less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be 
considered small.

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

    In the NPRM, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on imposing 
several reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance obligations on various 
providers, many of whom may be small entities. Specifically, the NPRM 
proposes to require all entities and individuals that file in the 
Commission Registration System (CORES) to update any information 
required by the system within 10 business days of any changes.
    With respect to the RMD, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to 
deploy multi-factor authentication functionality and whether to require 
providers to use such technology in order to submit a filing to the 
Database. In addition, or as an alternative to multi-factor 
authentication, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring an officer, owner, 
or other principal of a provider to obtain a PIN that must be entered 
before an RMD submission is accepted by the filing system. In 
particular, we seek comment on whether the Commission should require 
the signing officer to submit additional information to obtain a PIN 
that must be used to submit an RMD certification, including: (1) a non-
P.O. box street address and telephone number for the location of the 
office where the officer does business, and a direct business email 
address for the officer; (2) a business address, telephone number, and 
email address for the provider's registered agent for service of 
process (or a certification that such an agent does not exist); and (3) 
certifications, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 47 CFR 1.16 of the 
Commission's rules. The NPRM also seeks comment on the method by which 
the Commission could collect this information and generate the PIN for 
use by the officer when submitting an RMD filing. The NPRM seeks 
comment on whether to require providers to pay a fee when submitting 
filings to the RMD, and seeks comment on when the Commission should 
collect the fee. In addition, the NPRM seeks comment on technological 
innovations that the Commission could employ to validate data entered 
into RMD filings, specifically, on software and other technical 
solutions that would cross-reference addresses and other contact 
details submitted by filers against other data sources, and flag actual 
or potential discrepancies for filers to resolve before the filing is 
submitted to the Commission.
    With regard to our enforcement of these proposed rules, the NPRM 
seeks comment on whether to establish a base and/or maximum forfeiture 
for submitting inaccurate or false information to the RMD, and failing 
to update information that has changed in the within 10 business days. 
The NPRM also seeks comment on what an appropriate forfeiture would be 
when a provider submits inaccurate or false information to the RMD, and 
in what circumstances this forfeiture would apply. Specifically, we 
propose to use the current statutory maximum of $24,496 listed in 
section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act as the base forfeiture amount 
regardless of the type of service provided by the filer for submitting 
false or inaccurate information to the Robocall Mitigation Database. 
Additionally, the NPRM proposes a base forfeiture of $5,000 for failure 
to update information within 10 days, and further proposes treating 
this as a continuing violation for every day the inaccurate information 
remains in the RMD, up to the statutory maximum of $183,718.
    The NPRM proposes to authorize downstream providers to permissively 
block traffic by RMD filers that have been given notice that their 
robocall mitigation plans are facially deficient and that fail to 
correct those deficiencies within 48 hours. The proposed blocking would 
occur through a three step process: (1) a notice issued to the provider 
through the RMD that their robocall mitigation plan is facially 
deficient because it fails to describe the specific reasonable steps 
that the provider is taking to avoid carrying and transmitting illegal 
robocalls; (2) allowing the provider 48-hours to cure this facial 
deficiency by uploading a robocall mitigation plan that sufficiently 
describes its mitigation practices; and (3) if it fails to do so, 
having a flag applied to the facially deficient filing in the RMD 
advising other providers that they may permissively block traffic from 
that provider upon providing notice to the Commission that they intend 
to do so. The NPRM seeks comment on whether there are additional 
examples of robocall mitigation plan deficiencies that would rise to 
the level of willful violations of the Commission's robocall mitigation 
rules.
    We anticipate the information we receive in comments including 
where requested, cost and benefit analyses, will help the Commission 
identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, 
including compliance costs and other burdens that may result from the 
proposals and inquiries we make in the NPRM. With respect to costs for 
filing fees, we seek comment on a fee schedule based on the cost of 
processing applications, with cost determined by the Commission's 
direct labor costs. We also believe that some proposals, such as the 
requirement that providers update any information submitted to CORES 
within 10 business days of any changes to that information, may not 
impose significant costs on small entities because Commission databases 
beyond the RMD similarly make use of contact information imported 
directly from CORES. We seek comment from small and other entities on 
that perspective.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed 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 rules for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    The NPRM seeks comment on proposals and alternatives that may have 
a significant impact on small entities. In particular, it seeks comment 
on the benefits and burdens of requiring all entities and individuals 
that file in CORES, including small entities, to update any information 
required by the system within 10 business days of any changes. The NPRM 
seeks comment on the benefits and burdens associated with various 
procedural and technical solutions to improve the quality of RMD 
filings, including: (1) deploying multi-factor authentication 
functionality for

[[Page 74199]]

the RMD; (2) requiring an officer to obtain a PIN in order to submit an 
RMD filing; and (3) employing a technical approach to RMD data 
validation, and any alternatives that might mitigate those burdens for 
RMD filers, including small entities. The NPRM also seeks comment on 
fees for future RMD filings, and seeks comment on whether these fees 
should be collected from existing filers.
    In proposing to establish the statutory maximum as the base 
forfeiture amount for submitting false or inaccurate information to the 
RMD, the NPRM seeks comment on whether a lower base forfeiture amount 
would be more appropriate. Further, it also seeks comment on whether 
there are particular mitigating factors the Commission should take into 
consideration when determining the amount of the forfeiture penalty, 
and proposes to find that the Commission should not impose a higher 
penalty on common carriers, including those that are small entities. In 
proposing to find that the Commission can impose a forfeiture on filers 
that fail to update information that has changed in the RMD within 10 
days, the NPRM seeks comment on whether to establish a base or maximum 
forfeiture, and whether the violation should be a single violation or 
continuing violation for each day the non-updated information remains 
in the RMD, which may have a particular impact on small entities. It 
also seeks comment on what the maximum forfeiture for a continuing 
violation should be.
    In proposing to allow downstream providers to permissively block 
traffic from providers that have submitted facially deficient robocall 
mitigation plans, instead of instances where the Commission must make a 
qualitative judgement, the NPRM seeks comment on the risks and costs to 
legitimate providers, including small entities, of authorizing 
permissive blocking, and whether those risks and costs outweigh the 
public interest benefits. The NPRM also seeks comment on any 
alternative that may modify the process to minimize those risks and 
costs to legitimate providers, including small entities. The Commission 
expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for 
small entities following the review of comments filed in response to 
the NPRM.

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

    None.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20176 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```