74184 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: September 6, 2024. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary. 

Accordingly, by the authority vested 

in me as the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services, and for the reasons set 

forth in the preamble, 42 CFR part 121 

is proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 121—ORGAN PROCUREMENT 

AND TRANSPLANTATION NETWORK 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sections 215, 371–77, and 377E 

of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 216, 273–274d, 

274f–5); sections 1102, 1106, 1138 and 1871 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302, 

1306, 1320b–8, and 1395hh); section 301 of 

the National Organ Transplant Act, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 274e); and E.O. 13879, 

84 FR 33817. 

■ 2. In § 121.6, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 121.6 Organ procurement. 

* * * * * 

(b) HIV. (1) Organs from donors with 

human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) 

may be transplanted only into 

individuals who— 

(i) Are living with HIV before 

receiving such organ(s); and 

(ii)(A) Are participating in clinical 

research approved by an institutional 

review board, as defined in 45 CFR part 

46, under the research criteria published 

by the Secretary under subsection (a) of 

section 377E of the Public Health 

Service Act, as amended; or 

(B) The Secretary has published, 

through appropriate procedures, a 

determination under section 377E(c) of 

the Public Health Service Act, as 

amended, that participation in such 

clinical research, as a requirement for 

transplants of donor organs with HIV, is 

no longer warranted. The Secretary has 

determined that participation in such 

clinical research is no longer warranted 

for the following categories of 

transplants: 

(1) Transplant of a donor kidney with 

HIV; and 

(2) Transplant of a donor liver with 

HIV. 

(2) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, the OPTN shall 

adopt and use standards of quality with 

respect to donor organs with HIV to the 

extent the Secretary determines 

necessary to allow the conduct of 

research in accordance with the criteria 

described in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of 

this section. 

(3) If the Secretary has determined 

under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this 

section that participation in clinical 

research is no longer warranted as a 

requirement for transplants of donor 

organs with HIV, the OPTN shall adopt 

and use standards of quality with 

respect to donor organs with HIV as 

directed by the Secretary, consistent 

with 42 U.S.C. 274, and in a way that 

ensures the changes will not reduce the 

safety of organ transplantation. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–20643 Filed 9–11–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–28–P 

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 §§ 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 messengerdelivered 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 Erik.Beith@

fcc.gov. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements contained in this 

document, send an email to PRA@

fcc.gov 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/FCC24-85A1.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), 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 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 plainlanguage 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 IPbased 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74186 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfregulation. 

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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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-yourupstream 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/robocallmitigation-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74188 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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, § 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 § 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 multifactor 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 1.47(h) of the 

Commission’s rules); and (3) 

certifications, under penalty of perjury 

pursuant to § 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 

‘‘robocall.mitigation@provider.com,’’ 

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 § 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 lowsensitivity 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74190 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 PINgenerating 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 

§ 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 deregistration.’’ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74192 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 crossreference 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 twostep 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 64.1200(k)(4) cease-anddesist 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74194 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonresponsive 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74196 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
74198 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonP.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 crossreference 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 multifactor authentication functionality for 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 177 / Thursday, September 12, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1