Rule2026-00010
Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database; CORES Registration System
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 6, 2026
Effective
February 5, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) adopts rules requiring Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD or Database) filers to take additional steps to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and currentness of submitted information. The rules also establish a base forfeiture of $10,000 for each violation for filers that submit false or inaccurate information to the Database, as well as a base forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to update information that has changed in the Database within 10 days. Further, the Wireline Competition Bureau is directed to establish a dedicated reporting mechanism for deficient filings in the Database, as well as to issue additional guidance and "best practices" for filers. Additionally, the Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of the Managing Director are directed to develop a two-factor (or more) authentication solution for accessing the Database.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 343-357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00010]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 64
[WC Docket No. 24-213, MD Docket No. 10-234; FCC 24-135; FR ID 295288]
Improving the Effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database;
CORES Registration System
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) adopts rules requiring Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD
or Database) filers to take additional steps to ensure the accuracy,
completeness, and currentness of submitted information. The rules also
establish a base forfeiture of $10,000 for each violation for filers
that submit false or inaccurate information to the Database, as well as
a base forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to update information that has
changed in the Database within 10 days. Further, the Wireline
Competition Bureau is directed to establish a dedicated reporting
mechanism for deficient filings in the Database, as well as to issue
additional guidance and ``best practices'' for filers. Additionally,
the Wireline Competition Bureau and Office of the Managing Director are
directed to develop a two-factor (or more) authentication solution for
accessing the Database.
DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective February 5, 2026, except
for the amendments to Sec. Sec. 1.8002(b)(2) and 64.6305(h), which may
contain modifications to existing information collection requirements
that require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act; and Sec. 1.1105, which requires notice to
Congress pursuant to section 9A(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. 159A(b)(2), and also requires certain updates to the FCC's
information technology systems and internal procedures to ensure
efficient and effective implementation. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective dates for
these rules.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Beith, Attorney Advisor,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#115463787a3f5374786579517772723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f2b7809b99dcb0979b869ab2949191dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained in
this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88d8dac9c8eeebeba6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="73232132331510105d141c05">[email protected]</span></a> or contact Nicole Ongele at
(202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order in WC Docket No. 24-213, MD Docket No. 10-234, FCC 24-135,
adopted on December 30, 2024, and released on January 8, 2025. The
complete text of this document is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-135A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-135A1.pdf</a>.
Synopsis
I. Discussion
The Robocall Mitigation Database is a key tool for ensuring
compliance with our STIR/SHAKEN and robocall mitigation rules and
provides critical support for efforts by the Commission and outside
stakeholders to combat illegal robocalling campaigns. This includes its
use by other federal and state enforcement bodies for their own
investigations of suspected illegal activity as well by downstream
providers, which rely on the Database to determine the permissibility
of traffic carried on their networks. Voice service providers,
including terminating providers, and intermediate providers must refuse
traffic sent directly from any provider that does not appear in the
Robocall Mitigation Database. Its continued effectiveness relies on
information submitted by providers being complete, accurate, and up to
date. Yet a review of filings in the Database indicates a lack of
thoroughness and diligence by some providers and, in some cases,
malfeasance by bad actors. Given the Database's importance, we act
today to promote accuracy, completeness, and currentness of
submissions; to increase accountability by accurately identifying
providers; to increase enforcement consequences for providers that
submit false information; and to establish a reporting mechanism for
shared oversight among all stakeholders. We also establish an
application processing fee for initial filings, and, importantly,
require providers to re-certify annually to the accuracy of their
submissions. Additionally, we direct that a two-factor authentication
solution for accessing the Database be developed. On balance, these
steps impose minimal burden on providers while strengthening the
Database's effectiveness as a compliance and consumer protection tool.
A. Requiring Filers To Update Information in CORES
To ensure that the Robocall Mitigation Database reflects up-to-date
information, we adopt our proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), 89 FR 74184 (Sept. 12, 2024), that all entities and individuals
that register in CORES in order to submit filings to the Database or
that register for any other purpose be required to update any
information
[[Page 344]]
submitted to CORES within 10 business days of any change to that
information. The NPRM also asked, given that Database filers must
obtain a business-type FRN, whether we should apply this requirement
only to business-type FRNs. No commenters urged the Commission to adopt
this approach. We therefore apply this requirement to all filers,
including those with individual FRNs. As explained above, the Database
automatically populates a filer's contact information, i.e., the
entity's name and business address, using CORES. Although Sec. 1.8002
of the Commission's rules requires that information submitted by CORES
registrants ``be kept current,'' it provides no deadline for submitting
updates after a change in information occurs. This risks the
possibility of out-of-date information being imported into the Database
at the time the provider submits a certification and robocall
mitigation plan. We agree with the State AGs that ``[h]armonizing the
information in CORES and the RMD will reduce confusion by improving the
accuracy of information in both databases, which will benefit both
providers and law enforcement agencies'' that rely on the Database. In
so doing, we align Sec. 1.8002 with Sec. 64.6305 of the Commission's
rules, which requires providers to update submissions to the Database
within 10 business days of any changes to required content. Consistent
with our view stated in the NPRM that such a rule would impose no
significant costs on CORES users or present any significant
countervailing burdens, no commenters opposed our proposal.
Additionally, keeping information in CORES up to date may have benefits
outside the robocall proceeding as well. As we stated in the NPRM, this
procedural improvement will also benefit other Commission databases
beyond the Database that make use of contact information imported from
CORES. We therefore implement a 10-business day deadline for all CORES
registrants to submit updates after a change in information occurs.
EPIC observes that the NPRM placed particular emphasis on the
importance of updating contact information, urging the Commission to
clarify ``that the enforceable requirement to update an RMD entry
within 10 days is not limited to contact information updates.'' Our
changes today do not affect 47 CFR 64.6305(d)(5)'s existing mandate
that changes to a provider's certification information, including the
implementation status of STIR/SHAKEN, must be updated within 10
business days.
B. Establishing Forfeiture for Submitting Inaccurate or False
Certification Data
Consistent with our proposal in the NPRM, we adopt a base
forfeiture for submitting false or inaccurate information to the
Robocall Mitigation Database. Specifically, we establish a base
forfeiture of $10,000 for each violation for filers that submit false
or inaccurate information to the Database. 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 addition, and as proposed in
the NPRM, we establish a base forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to
update information that has changed in the Robocall Mitigation Database
within 10 business days. Finally, consistent with the Commission's
approach in other contexts involving failure to file required forms or
information to the FCC, we find that these violations continue until
cured; accordingly, forfeitures shall be assessed on a daily basis up
to the statutory maximum for continuing violations.
$10,000 Base Forfeiture for Filing False or Inaccurate Information.
In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that submitting false or
inaccurate information to the Robocall Mitigation Database warrants a
significantly higher penalty than the existing $3,000 base forfeiture
for failure to file required forms or information. In order to
determine the appropriate punishment for such actions, we look to prior
Commission precedent in similar circumstances. The act of filing false
or inaccurate information in the Database has broad similarities to the
types of violations found in two contexts: (1) failure to file required
forms/information; and (2) misrepresentation/lack of candor.
Accordingly, we sought comment on two alternative forfeiture
proposals for filers that submit false or inaccurate information to the
Robocall Mitigation Database. For the first option, we sought comment
on a proposal to set the base forfeiture for filing false or inaccurate
information to the Database at $10,000. This option would make the
penalty for filing false/inaccurate information to the Database
somewhat less than, but similar to, forfeitures the Commission has
proposed/imposed in cases involving a licensee or authorization
holder's failure to file required forms or information to the
Commission. For the second option, we sought comment on a proposal to
impose the statutory maximum forfeiture amount allowable under section
503 of the Communications Act as the base forfeiture--the same approach
that the Commission takes for violations of Sec. 1.17 of our rules
related to misrepresentation and lack of candor in investigatory or
adjudicatory matters.
The comments in the record are mixed. The State AGs and ZipDX each
express strong support for treating the filing of false or inaccurate
information in the Robocall Mitigation Database akin to
misrepresentation/lack of candor, arguing that such actions should
elicit the statutory maximum penalty. NTCA, VAFR, and Ravnitzky support
a set base forfeiture below the statutory maximum, akin to forfeitures
assessed in failure-to-file cases. USTelecom does not argue in favor of
either proposal specifically, but generally supports fines to deter bad
faith submissions to the RMD. Finally, NCTA as well as INCOMPAS and CCA
reject both options, each arguing against imposing any fines for filing
false or inaccurate information unless (1) the Commission first grants
the filer an opportunity to correct, or (2) the Commission makes a
finding that the submission of false/inaccurate data was willful.
We find that the first option--setting a base forfeiture below the
statutory maximum--is sufficient to accomplish the Commission's goals
of deterrence and punishment for filing false or inaccurate information
in the Robocall Mitigation Database. That said, and consistent with the
Commission's prior statements on the critical nature of accurate
information in the Database, we find that submitting false or
inaccurate information to the Database warrants a significantly higher
base forfeiture amount than the Commission's $3,000 base forfeiture for
failure to file required forms or information. Accordingly, we adopt a
base forfeiture of $10,000 for each violation for filers that submit
false or inaccurate information to the Robocall Mitigation Database.
The record contains comments advocating for both ends of the minimum/
maximum spectrum; some commenters recommend imposing the statutory
maximum in order to dissuade bad actors from profiting from deliberate
wrongdoing, while others express concern that fines may lead to
unintended harmful effects on small companies and thus reduce
competition. We find that the amount of $10,000 serves as an
appropriate middle ground between these competing views, while
providing an added deterrent against false or inaccurate filings.
Moreover, we note that section 503 of
[[Page 345]]
the Act allows calibration of the penalty depending on the specific
facts and circumstances of each individual case. Application of section
503's adjustment factors permit the Commission to assess penalties
upward to the statutory maximum (in cases of egregious or deliberate
malfeasance, for example) or reduce the penalty below the base when
application of the factors justifies a lighter touch (such as minor/
limited violations or the violator's inability to pay). Adjusting
forfeiture penalties this way allows the Commission to ensure that it
meets it obligation to enforce the statutes and regulations that
protect consumers from abuses as well as its duty to promote and
protect competition in the telecommunications industry.
$1,000 Base Forfeiture for Failure to Update. 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. In the NPRM, we sought comment on a proposal to adopt a
base forfeiture of $1,000, similar to the base forfeiture set forth in
in Sec. 1.80 of the Commission's rules for failure to maintain
required records. We find that a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to
update Database filings within 10 business days is appropriate and
adopt it here.
None of the commenters specifically addressed the Commission's
proposal to implement a $1,000 base forfeiture for failure to update
filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. That said, four commenters
expressed concern about the possibility that they could find themselves
subject to hefty fines for inadvertent lapses or minor errors. NTCA
specifically raises a failure to update after a change in company board
membership as an example of an oversized penalty that should be
differentiated from cases involving false claims of robocall mitigation
efforts. Conversely, the State AGs, iconectiv, EPIC, and ZipDX argue
that the accuracy of the data in the Database is critically important,
and that failure to ensure that the information is accurate and up-to-
date significantly undermines the Commission's efforts to curb illegal
robocalls.
We find merit in both perspectives. We agree with commenters that
inadvertent errors or minor lapses in compliance should not result in
the same penalties as willful misconduct. We therefore find that the
base forfeiture should be significantly lower than the $10,000 base
forfeiture we set for submitting false or inaccurate information. That
said, we agree with commenters who point out that inaccurate
information in the Robocall Mitigation Database is still harmful--
regardless of whether the inaccuracy results from malfeasance or
neglect. Finally, we look to the penalties assessed in similar
circumstances and note that the Commission has already established a
$1,000 base forfeiture for failure to maintain required records. A base
forfeiture in the amount of $1,000 in this instance creates a
meaningful distinction between willful/malicious misconduct and
inadvertent error. We find that a separate penalty for failure to
update information in the RMD after a change has occurred is a
necessary addition in order to ensure that filers make accuracy a
priority. Finally, we hold that the integrity of the data in the RMD is
no less critical than other records that licensees/authorization
holders must maintain; accordingly, we apply a penalty, consistent with
the fines applied in analogous circumstances. We therefore adopt a
$1,000 base forfeiture for failure to update Database information
within 10 business days.
Forfeitures Assessed on a Continuing Violation Basis. In the NPRM,
we sought comment whether to assess the base forfeitures for filing
false/inaccurate information and failure to update Robocall Mitigation
Database information within 10 business days on a single violation
basis or a continuing violation basis.
Only one commenter directly addressed this issue. The State AGs
support assessing forfeitures on a continuing basis so that penalties
do not merely become the so-called ``cost of doing business'' for bad
actors. Further, the record in this proceeding shows broad agreement
that accurate information in the Robocall Mitigation Database is
critically important to government and industry's shared efforts to
combat illegal robocalls. Information in the Database may be consulted
at any time; accordingly, each day that false or inaccurate information
remains in the Database without detection or correction necessarily
harms the integrity of the Database and degrades its usefulness. We
hold that entities that file in the Database have a continuing
obligation to file truthful and accurate information in the Database,
and that the filing of false or inaccurate information in the Robocall
Mitigation Database is a violation that continues until the false or
inaccurate information is corrected. But this is not the end of the
filer's responsibility. The integrity of the data in the Database must
be maintained over time because it is relied upon by other service
providers, industry traceback and mitigation groups, and government
investigators. Its value as a resource is not limited to the date of
filing, but rather continues each day that the information is available
to persons and entities who rely upon it. As such, we hold that filing
entities have an explicit continuing obligation to update information
within 10 business days of any change. Violations of these obligations
are necessarily continuing in nature until the errors or omissions are
cured. Accordingly, we find that forfeitures assessed for such
violations should be assessed on a continuing violation basis.
C. Establishing a Dedicated Reporting Mechanism for Deficient Filings
In order to enhance the integrity of the Robocall Mitigation
Database and better combat bad actors, we direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to establish a dedicated reporting mechanism for
deficient filings. We invited general comment in the NPRM on any
procedures that we could adopt to facilitate the goal of accurate
compliance with Database requirements, and based on the record in
response, find that a reporting mechanism is a procedural resource that
can help achieve this goal. Although the Commission did not seek
comment on establishing a dedicated reporting portal for deficient
filings in the NPRM, several commenters urged the Commission to adopt
such a mechanism. Despite the severe penalties associated with making
noncompliant submissions, the Database evinces among some providers a
lack of diligence and, in certain cases, malfeasance. Deficiencies
identified range from failures to provide accurate contact information
to submission of robocall mitigation plans that do not in any way
describe reasonable robocall mitigation practices. Offering a reporting
resource that allows stakeholders to notify the Commission if they
identify deficiencies in the RMD will improve its usefulness.
Although the Commission continues to review and address such
filings through enforcement actions, we agree with USTelecom that the
Commission need not ``carry this burden alone.'' We envision that
creating a public reporting resource available to state and local
regulators and attorneys general, consumers, public interest groups,
providers, and others could allow them to easily notify the Commission
that it may need to re-check certain filings and take action to require
prompt corrections from providers. Enabling outside parties to flag
suspicious filings via a streamlined process would ``encourag[e]
reporting on a more
[[Page 346]]
consistent basis'' and ``facilitate expedient Commission action.''
Comments submitted jointly by CTIA, USTelecom, EPIC, the National
Consumers League, and Public Knowledge also observe that in so doing,
``industry and public stakeholders'' can ``bolster strained Commission
resources.'' Other benefits may inure from additional scrutiny, such as
the potential ability to identify ``recurring themes'' in deficient
filings. One commenter suggests that the Commission should collaborate
more closely with providers and harness technologies, such as real-time
data sharing, to enhance robocall mitigation. By establishing a
dedicated reporting line, we provide one such mechanism for enhanced
cooperation and data sharing. Offering outside parties a dedicated
channel for reporting deficient filings would therefore facilitate
improvements to the Robocall Mitigation Database. In addition, we
expect that a more effective Database will reduce robocall volumes, the
benefits of which we explain in the Call Authentication Trust Anchor
Eighth Report and Order. Moreover, we believe that the costs of
establishing and maintaining such a portal would be minimal and easily
outweighed by the benefits to the Commission and stakeholders in
ensuring accurate submissions to the Database.
As with previous delegations of authority concerning the Robocall
Mitigation Database, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau, in
consultation with the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) and the
Enforcement Bureau, to determine the appropriate mechanism for the
Commission to receive reports of deficient filings. We delegate to the
Wireline Competition Bureau the authority, in consultation with OCIO
and the Senior Agency Official for Privacy (SAOP), to specify the form
and format of any such submissions and to make any necessary changes to
the Robocall Mitigation Database portal and interface in connection
with the reporting portal. For example, the Joint Commenters suggest
developing a ``separate RMD referral portal that would allow providers
and the public to assist the FCC in identifying bad actors abusing the
RMD.'' In making this delegation, we also direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau, in consultation with the SAOP, to consider any
Privacy Act implications associated with any user data or Personally
Identifiable Information that may be collected through the reporting
interface. We further direct the Wireline Competition Bureau, prior to
implementing the reporting mechanism, to complete any review by the
Office of Management and Budget that may be required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, to the extent the reporting mechanism involves
identical questions posed to reporting entities. In carrying out its
delegated authority, the Wireline Competition Bureau shall consult with
the Commission's Chief Data and Analytics Officer regarding any
applicable OPEN Government Data Act requirements. We further direct the
Wireline Competition Bureau to develop materials to educate outside
parties on how to file reports and to announce the availability of the
reporting portal by Public Notice. As part of its delegated authority
to implement the dedicated reporting mechanism, we direct the Bureau,
in consultation with OCIO and the SAOP, to make changes to the portal
and accompanying procedures as necessary to ensure the efficient and
effective operation of this important new tool. In addition, we direct
the Enforcement Bureau to work with the Wireline Competition Bureau to
ensure that reports submitted through this portal are referred to the
Enforcement Bureau as quickly and effectively as possible. We direct
the Enforcement Bureau to investigate potential violations
expeditiously and enforce our rules using the Commission's full suite
of enforcement mechanisms.
D. Issuing Substantive Guidance and Filer Education
To assist filers with their robocall mitigation compliance
obligations, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to issue
additional guidance, educational materials, and ``best practices'' for
filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Among other things, we
sought general comment in the NPRM on measures we could take to improve
and ensure the accuracy of information contained in the Database. The
State AGs suggest that providing interpretive guidance regarding the
meaning of undefined terms, and in applying the Commission's
definitions, ``could improve the accuracy of the RMD and other robocall
mitigation efforts.'' We agree that ``embedding clarifying information
into the process of creating RMD entries'' may assist those,
particularly less sophisticated, providers experiencing difficulty
interpreting the Commission's forms and rules. For instance, a provider
unsure of how to interpret either Commission-defined terms (such as
what constitutes a ``foreign voice service provider'') or general
language (for example, which address serves as an entity's ``business
address'') when certifying may benefit from such guidance. Doing so may
also obviate the need to later cure discovered deficiencies, saving
both time and resources for the Commission and providers.
We delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to
determine what form such guidance should take and how it should be
promulgated, consistent with this Report and Order. We note that, in
other contexts, such guidance has been provided through ``Frequently
Asked Questions,'' user guides and other similar documents posted to
the Commission's website. We expect that providers filing in the
Database will benefit from similar types of guidance, leading to
overall improvements in Database submissions.
In connection with this delegation, we direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to respond to a specific request in the record from
the State AGs regarding how we can guide providers toward consistently
identifying themselves as ``foreign voice service providers'' in their
RMD certifications. In this regard, we note that providers completing
their RMD certification form must indicate whether they are a foreign
voice service provider. The State AGs indicate that they have seen
providers who may be foreign voice service providers failing to
identify themselves as required. They ask the Commission to provide
interpretative guidance to assist providers in completing this portion
of the RMD certification form. We agree that this guidance would be
informative and lead to more transparent information and accurate
filings.
CTIA also asks that the Commission clarify that when a provider
certifies whether it has been the subject of a previous robocall
investigation or enforcement action, that it certifies not only for the
registrant specifically but also for its affiliates and principals.
CTIA suggests that on the Database certification form, the language
should reference ``affiliates or principals'' in addition to the
``filing entity'' itself. In this regard, we note here that our rules
obligate providers to certify whether ``at any time in the prior two
years, the filing entity (and/or any entity for which the filing entity
shares common ownership, management, directors, or control)'' has been
the subject of an agency or law enforcement action or investigation.
Nevertheless, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to issue
guidance clarifying this or any other rule related to Robocall
Mitigation Database filings it deems appropriate.
[[Page 347]]
In addition, we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider
whether any changes to the Robocall Mitigation Database are necessary
to provide greater guidance to filers, including, for instance, through
the use of webtools, pop-up windows, or similar user-interface
enhancements. To this end, we also delegate to the Wireline Competition
Bureau the authority to make any necessary changes to the Robocall
Mitigation Database submission interface. By providing flexibility to
best address stakeholder confusion and concerns--both through improved
communications and Database enhancements--we expect that the Wireline
Competition Bureau will be able to provide timely and targeted guidance
that will, in turn, help to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of
the Database.
E. Requiring Providers To Remit a Filing Fee
We adopt our tentative conclusion that Robocall Mitigation Database
filings are ``applications'' within the meaning of section 8 of the
Communications Act, and we therefore adopt an application fee for
initial submissions, and annually thereafter, and initially set the fee
for both filings at $100. Under the Commission's red-light rules,
applications and other requests for benefits by parties that owe non-
tax debt to the Commission will not be processed. Section 8(a) of the
Communications Act mandates that the Commission assess and collect
application fees based on the Commission's costs to process
applications. Fees assessed pursuant to our section 8 authority are
deposited in the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. Thus, while the
determination of the fee amount will be based on the cost of
processing, the collected fees are not used to fund Commission
activities. Section 8(c) also requires the Commission to amend the
application fee schedule if the Commission determines that the schedule
requires amendment to ensure that: (1) such fees reflect increases or
decreases in the costs of processing applications at the Commission or
(2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition of new
categories of applications.
The Commission processes a wide range of applications, as well as
many filings that are not applications for spectrum licenses or
authorizations. The NPRM stated that the Commission has applied our
section 8 fee authority to a range of filings. NCTA disputes the status
of Robocall Mitigation Database filings as ``applications,'' contending
that ``an RMD filing is not `applying' for anything'' by highlighting
the mandatory nature of the filings and claiming that no benefits
otherwise inure to the provider. We disagree. Like tariff filings, to
which we analogized the fee here in the NPRM, the filing is required;
and providers benefit from their filing as doing so enables downstream
providers to carry their traffic. Tariff filings were included in the
original statutory fee schedule. The statutory fee schedule, as amended
by Congress and incorporated into our rules, is the baseline from which
the Commission worked in 2020. Thus, filings included in the statutory
schedule, that were still extant in 2020, are helpful examples of the
types of filings encompassed by the Congressional directive to assess
and collect application fees pursuant to Section 8 of the
Communications Act.
Commission review of Robocall Mitigation Database submissions
represents a considerable investment of labor hours that continues to
rise. Over 2,600 submissions required review after implementing the
original requirement for voice service providers to file certifications
and robocall mitigation plans. After expanding the scope of providers
required to file in the Database, this number jumped to approximately
9,000 filings. These filings necessitate a significant expenditure of
Commission resources to process, including review of the specific steps
providers undertake to mitigate illegal robocall traffic. We find a
$100 filing fee an appropriate amount to cover this cost, based on
calculations made by the Wireline Competition Bureau regarding direct
labor costs, as detailed in the NPRM. In the NPRM, the Wireline
Competition Bureau estimated 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 was $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 was
$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 was $26.71 (0.25 hours * $106.85 = $26.71). The
total labor costs per filing review was $102.66 ($43 + $32.95 +
$26.71). Salary data was 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 proposed a filing fee of $100 per filing.
The record supports our determination that a $100 fee for Robocall
Mitigation Database filings is appropriate. Several commenters support
remittance of a filing fee. Although we do not rely on the rationales
suggested by some commenters that a fee would provide financial
incentive for providers to be more circumspect in their filings or act
as a deterrent to bad actors, we nevertheless acknowledge their support
for remittance of a fee. Our approach to the filing fee, meanwhile,
should allay the concerns of those commenters opposed. For instance,
INCOMPAS and CCA argue that ``[r]equiring providers to submit a new
filing fee every time a provider makes a minor adjustment to its RMD
filing or corrects inaccurate (or readily curable) information'' would
be excessive. On the contrary, under the approach we adopt today,
assessment of the fee will occur only at the time of initial submission
and annually thereafter, limiting concerns that filers would find it
cost prohibitive to update filings. Indeed, we agree with ZipDX that,
against the backdrop of expenses a legitimate filer faces, a ``$100 fee
is negligible.'' Thus, we conclude that these fees are fair,
administrable, and sustainable. The Commission's adopted goals that our
section 8 fees be ``fair, administrable, and sustainable,'' which ``is
the same overarching set of goals we employ in the context of our
regulatory fee collections.'' Application of our overarching program
goals, however, must comport with the language of the statute.
Moreover, we recognize other general limits of fee authority. Though
the IOAA no longer applies to the Commission, we remain cognizant of
broader legal issues raised by user-fee and regulatory-fee precedent.
We therefore adopt the $100 application processing fee for initial RMD
submissions and annual certifications described below and revise the
schedule of charges for wireline competition services in 47 CFR 1.1105.
We direct the Wireline Competition Bureau, working in conjunction with
OMD, to implement the RMD application processing fee and to include
instructions for how to pay the fee in the Wireline Competition Bureau
Fee Filing Guide. In its implementation of the filing fee, we direct
the Wireline Competition Bureau to consider whether and how to account
for filings submitted on behalf of multiple affiliated entities.
We also apply the Commission's red-light rule to Robocall
Mitigation
[[Page 348]]
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 NPRM, we sought comment on
whether to conduct a red-light check for RMD filings. We agree with the
State AGs that application of our red-light rules to RMD submissions
may ``prevent unscrupulous providers from filing RMD entries and
transmitting robocalls.'' Even if 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,'' we find
that conducting a red-light check at any point after filing allows the
Commission to spot delinquent debtors. A delinquent debt could arise
for failure to pay the $100 application processing fee or for other
debts owed to the Commission. In the context of the RMD, this could
lead to removal of certification, which the Commission has found to be
an appropriate consequence in the context of the Intermediate Provider
Registry, which similarly maintains ongoing certification filings.
Under the red-light rule, we will consider acceptance of filings into
the Robocall Mitigation Database conditional and subject to rescission
in the event a filer fails the red-light check. The Intermediate
Provider Registry is a registry compiled for purposes ensuring calls
are completed in rural and remote areas. It is made publicly available
on the Commission's website at <a href="https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/ipr_ext">https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/ipr_ext</a>, and contains information that intermediate providers are
required to submit, including their contact information, the states in
which they provide service, and a point of contact.
Requiring Annual Recertification with Associated Filing Fee. In
connection with the foregoing change, we require that providers
recertify annually in the Robocall Mitigation Database, at the time
they submit their annual filing fee. As the State AGs observe ``the RMD
contains entries which have not been updated in years,'' in spite of
new filing requirements for all providers. We find that imposing an
annual recertification requirement would facilitate the Commission's
goals of keeping the Database up to date and improve the overall
quality of submissions over time. We also agree with commenters that
such a requirement is analogous to other annual filing requirements,
demonstrating the feasibility of such an approach. For example, EPIC
notes that carriers are required to submit annual certifications to the
Commission regarding their Customer Proprietary Network Information
(CPNI) obligations, while the State AGs compare an annual
recertification requirement to the ``annual renewal of access to the
Federal Do Not Call Registry,'' arguing that this precedent
``demonstrate[s] the feasibility of requiring a periodic application or
renewal fee in this context.'' We agree. We find that requiring annual
recertification by providers will ensure that information in the
Database remains current and will promote greater diligence by filers
while imposing minimal burdens on providers. Failure to fulfill the
annual recertification requirement will result in referral to the
Enforcement Bureau, which may subject the filer to forfeiture or
removal from the Database.
This annual recertification obligation will necessarily require
staff to review Robocall Mitigation Database filings to determine
whether providers have complied with the Commission's rules. As is true
of initial filing submissions, this process will require staff to
conduct outreach to providers that fail to recertify, evaluate whether
any changes to filings satisfy the Commission's Robocall Mitigation
Database filing requirements, and refer deficient filers to the
Enforcement Bureau. We therefore set the same filing fee of $100 per
filing in connection with the annual recertification requirement. In
order to facilitate administration of the fee and provide certainty to
Database filers, we set an annual deadline of March 1 for
recertification of existing Robocall Mitigation Database filings.
F. Measures To Improve the Security of the Robocall Mitigation Database
To better secure the Robocall Mitigation Database, we direct the
Wireline Competition Bureau and OMD to develop a two-factor (or more)
authentication solution for accessing the Database. Multi-factor
authentication requires the use of multiple authentication protocols,
as opposed to simply a username and password, in order to grant access
to an account. For example, a two-factor authentication solution may
require both use of a password and a one-time verification code. We
sought comment in the NPRM on the benefits of additional security
afforded by multi-factor authentication. Both ZipDX and the State AGs
support the use of multi-factor authentication. In addition to
preventing access by unauthorized users, ZipDX also observes that an
added authentication layer ``is useful not just as an added security
measure but also to validate provided email addresses.'' The State AGs
further note that use of multi-factor authentication tools ``helps to
provide a connection between corporate policies and individuals, which
will contribute to effective enforcement.'' We agree with these
commenters that the added security afforded by a two-factor
authentication solution merits its use. Given its critical role in
defending America's voice networks, protecting the integrity of
information hosted by the Robocall Mitigation Database necessitates--at
minimum--use of protocols deployed elsewhere by the Commission, such as
CORES. Although some commenters characterize multi-factor
authentication as unnecessary and cumbersome, we do not agree that
deploying a two-factor authentication solution would be costly or
unduly burdensome, especially given the possible benefits that would
redound from such a requirement. We nevertheless acknowledge that such
a requirement could present logistical problems that would need to be
resolved upon implementation. For example, although USTelecom does not
dispute the successful use of an added authentication layer in CORES,
they argue that if a similar approach were taken for its use in the
Robocall Mitigation Database, it would necessitate changes to how the
Database functions. We therefore direct the Wireline Competition Bureau
and OMD to develop a two-factor authentication solution with these
potential issues and solutions in mind. In doing so, we direct that
``[t]his solution must offer users the option of using phishing-
resistant authentication--i.e., it must provide support for Web-
Authentication-based approaches, such as security keys.''
G. Other Issues
In the NPRM, we proposed and sought comment on several additional
procedural and other steps the Commission could take to improve the
effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database. Specifically, we
sought comment on requiring filers to obtain a PIN in order to submit a
filing and whether and how leveraging software and other technical
solutions could help to flag potential discrepancies in Database
filings. We also proposed to authorize providers to engage in
permissive blocking of ``voice traffic by Robocall Mitigation Database
filers that have been given notice that their robocall mitigation plans
are facially deficient and that fail to correct those deficiencies
within 48 hours.'' Upon review of the record in response to the NPRM,
we decline to take these steps in this Report and Order. Nevertheless,
we believe many of these initiatives may have merit, and may revisit
these
[[Page 349]]
solutions in the future if warranted, including those suggested by
commenters. We therefore direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to
explore many of these issues further, as discussed below.
Requiring Filers to Obtain a PIN to File in the Robocall Mitigation
Database. We similarly decline to require that filers obtain a PIN to
make filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. In the NPRM, we
sought comment on whether, in addition to or as an alternative to
multi-factor authentication, an officer, owner, or other principal of a
provider should be required to obtain and enter a PIN before a
submission is accepted by the filing system. While some commenters
support such a measure, they generally do so on the grounds that the
PIN could serve as an accountability measure that would create a point
of contact directly familiar with and responsible for the provider's
filings. However, we note that our certification provisions already
require that an officer declare as ``true and correct'' the information
contained in the provider's submission, doing so ``under penalty of
perjury.'' Although we signaled concern that such officers need not
``provide their own direct contact information or . . . make more
specific certifications with respect to their role in ensuring that the
provider submits and maintains accurate information,'' we agree with
ZipDX that--at this time--the benefits of requiring filers to obtain a
PIN do not outweigh the burdens involved. While we disagree with NCTA's
claim that references in the NPRM to ``consultants and provider
employees . . . completing RMD submissions without diligence'' are
``without evidence,'' we acknowledge the logistical burdens cited by
NCTA and agree with ZipDX that the goals cited by the NPRM may be
better served through other approaches, particularly the procedural
protections we adopt above.
ZipDX proposes that the Commission require, as part of a provider's
Robocall Mitigation Database filing, affirmation that the entity has
filed a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) with the Federal Crimes
Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Failing that, ZipDX suggests that a
registrant be required to provide an explanation and require the
uploading of a government-issued ID, to be kept confidential by the
Commission. While we acknowledge the potential merits of ZipDX's
proposals, we find the record insufficient to adequately assess their
viability. While we decline to adopt the specific proposals advanced by
ZipDX at this time, we nevertheless direct the Wireline Competition
Bureau, in coordination with the Enforcement Bureau, to investigate
these and other measures and procedures to achieve such ends,
consistent with privacy and other requirements.
Data Validation Tools. We decline at this time to adopt any
specific software or other technical solutions that would validate the
data entered into an RMD filing against an external source and flag
discrepancies for Commission staff to review. In the NPRM, we sought
broad comment on the use of such tools to improve the quality of the
information being input into the Database, including the availability,
cost, and feasibility of various solutions. While commenters generally
support the use of data validation tools to enhance the accuracy and
completeness of data submitted in the Database, there was a lack of
consensus and specificity about what solutions could prove most
effective, and no data regarding the cost of implementation. We
therefore find the record is insufficient to support adoption of a
specific method at this time. Given unanimous interest in leveraging
technical solutions to improve the Database, however, we direct the
Bureau to further investigate the feasibility and costs associated with
those solutions offered in the record, as well as any others that could
achieve substantially the same goal. We delegate to the Wireline
Competition Bureau the authority to implement any technical data
validation solution that it determines, through its investigation, is
likely to produce benefits that outweigh the solution's costs.
Authorizing Permissive Blocking for Facially Deficient Filings. We
decline to adopt our proposal to authorize downstream providers to
permissively block traffic by providers that have submitted facially
deficient filings and failed to correct them. The NPRM sought comment
on various aspects of this proposal, including the process for
identifying facially deficient filings, providing deficient filers a
reasonable opportunity to cure, and implementing a permissive blocking
scheme. The NPRM also sought comment on the risks and costs of
authorizing permissive blocking, and whether the standard associated
with the issuance of cease-and-desist letters provides any guidance
regarding the appropriate approach to take here. Commenters' views
varied, but most opposed permissive blocking, or supported it only if
significant modifications were implemented. For example, the VAFR
argues that any such rule would exceed the Commission's statutory
authority and prove ``unreasonable and potentially devastating for
small [voice service providers],'' claiming that the period proposed by
the NPRM for responding to alleged deficiencies would need to be
lengthened to at least 30 days. While we agree with the State AGs and
USTelecom that it is important to address facially deficient filings
and block traffic that is ``likely to be illegitimate,'' given the
severe consequences of being blocked, we are persuaded that the
Commission should first focus on our ``existing authority to clean up
the RMD and remove bad actors who file deliberately false or misleading
information under its existing two-step ``facially deficient' removal
process.''
Instead of pursuing a permissive blocking scheme, CTIA suggests
that the Commission take further action to remove providers subject to
mandatory blocking from the Robocall Mitigation Database. Specifically,
CTIA urges the Commission to, within 30 days of the issuance of a
blocking order made pursuant to Sec. 64.1200(n)(3) of our rules,
remove a provider from the Robocall Mitigation Database. CTIA contends
that doing so represents ``a logical step'' consistent with our
existing rules and additionally argues that the Commission ``should
prioritize its implementation of blocking orders on . . . flagrant
offenders who have refused to address issues with their RMD filings
despite Commission outreach.'' As noted by CTIA, Commission rules
already speak to the subject. We therefore find that additional action
is unnecessary. Moreover, we note that the Commission balances a
variety of factors in establishing enforcement priorities and decline
to elaborate further on our internal review and enforcement processes,
to the extent that CTIA and EPIC requests that the Commission
prioritize certain enforcement actions over others.
Limiting the Scope of Confidentiality Requests. Because our
existing rules discourage broad requests for confidentiality, we
decline at this time to further limit the scope of confidentiality
requests. In response to our request for general comment regarding
improvements to the Database, CTIA and USTelecom urge the Commission to
reject overly broad confidentiality requests pertaining to robocall
mitigation plans. They contend that failure to do so would undermine
the usefulness of the Robocall Mitigation Database, including its
ability to promote transparency and accountability. ZipDX claims that
some providers ``redact the entire substance of their [robocall
mitigation plan] from public inspection, depriving other stakeholders
from evaluating the plan
[[Page 350]]
and making appropriate decisions.'' USTelecom further asserts that such
sweeping redactions enable bad actors to abuse confidentiality
protections to avoid public scrutiny. However, as USTelecom itself
observes, the Commission has already adopted a protective order
delineating the strict terms of any confidentiality request. Indeed,
the Commission addressed these very concerns at the time of its
issuance and noted that it would ``not hesitate to act should we
identify improper confidentiality requests.'' The other measures we
adopt today, including establishing a dedicated reporting mechanism for
deficient filings, will better enable the Commission to identify and
address overly redacted robocall mitigation plans. As such, while we
heed commenters' calls to be strict in our review of confidentiality
requests, we do not formalize any such action today. However, as part
of the filer education initiative discussed above, we direct the
Wireline Competition Bureau to consider whether it would be helpful to
provide additional guidance to filers that wish to submit requests for
confidential treatment of their Robocall Mitigation Database filings,
consistent with the terms of the RMD Protective Order.
Heightened Scrutiny of Certain Filings. We do not at this time
adopt rules that would formally modify the level of scrutiny a given
provider receives in certain cases. Responding to our broad request for
comment on potential improvements to the Database, USTelecom proposes
that when individuals ``associated with a certain number of apparently
unaffiliated entities submits a new filing, the Commission should
elevate [that] filing for additional review.'' The Joint Commenters
agree, stating that such scrutiny would deter ``bad actors from
creating new entities to refile after being kicked out of the
Database.'' They further argue that the Commission can ``best promote
the quality and accuracy of information . . . by using its existing
authority to closely analyze the substance of [robocall mitigation
plan] filings and to remove facially deficient filings submitted by
providers.'' We decline to discuss here our internal investigatory
processes, including the extent to which the Commission already applies
additional scrutiny to certain types of applications. Moreover, the
Commission has already developed an expedited two-step procedure for
removing facially deficient filings. CTIA urges the Commission to set a
30-day deadline for removal of deficient filings after completion of
this process, so as to ``provide much-needed certainty.'' However, as
outlined in the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order,
removal already occurs immediately following the second step. To the
extent that CTIA expresses concerns about the timing of enforcement
actions, we again decline to discuss internal processes and find that
such concerns are outside the scope of this proceeding. We therefore
see no need to make additional adjustments to address certain types of
filings identified by commenters.
EPIC additionally argues that the Commission should expand its
expedited removal process for facially deficient filings to providers
who are non-responsive to tracebacks or who continually connect illegal
calls. We note that such a suggestion falls outside the scope of this
proceeding. Nevertheless, failure to respond to traceback requests and
transmission of illegal calls represent serious violations of our rules
that warrant a swift response. We will continue to monitor the
deterrent effect of our enforcement actions on such behaviors and
consider further changes to improve the effectiveness thereof.
Additional Enhancements to the Database and Submission Form.
Although we do not adopt additional changes to the Robocall Mitigation
Database portal and its submission form, we direct the Wireline
Competition Bureau to investigate whether recommendations made in the
record warrant further improvements. USTelecom, for instance, suggests
enabling filers to include more than one attachment in their
submissions so as to avoid ``having to rewrite and refile everything''
when providing updates. USTelecom also proposes to allow a parent
company to submit filings on behalf of an affiliated entity, arguing
that doing so would streamline the process for providing updates to the
Database and cites to other licensing regimes that allow affiliates to
share authorizations. CTIA requests that the Commission overhaul the
Database's architecture to allow for more granular searches and a
download option for those results, asserting that doing so would make
fake or falsified information more easily identifiable by legitimate
providers. CTIA further states that the Commission should amend the
Database filing form to require selection of a state or territory from
a dropdown list to improve searchability, and USTelecom similarly
requests that the search page include an entity's OCN to streamline a
provider's evaluation of potential partners. We recognize the value of
these and other potential changes to the Database. EPIC also suggests
that we reject entries from being created when a filer does not enter
all required basic information. However, the Database presently
requires completion of all fields before submission. Moreover, the
Commission has already implemented an expedited procedure for removing
facially deficient filing. As such, we direct the Wireline Competition
Bureau to explore the potential for these and any other modifications
to the Database that would improve the user experience of filers.
IP Transition. We do not at this time adopt recommendations made in
the record seeking to facilitate the IP transition. NTCA requests that
the Commission examine how the persistent use of TDM facilities and
routing have on robocall mitigation efforts and consider whether
standards that enable call authentication over non-IP facilities should
be used by voice providers to ensure that STIR/SHAKEN is, at minimum,
more effective than otherwise. ZipDX, acknowledging that such
suggestions are only ``marginally within the scope of the NPRM,
nevertheless recommends that we collect data on STIR/SHAKEN
implementation by revising the filing process to require providers to
indicate the number of calls in the month prior to the filing date
affected by delays in IP implementation and to annually update such
filings with recent data if deficiencies in implementation exist. These
recommendations, irrespective of their merits, fall outside the scope
of this proceeding. The Commission is also separately examining this
issue in its Notice of Inquiry on this matter, and we otherwise decline
to adopt additional filing requirements at this time.
II. Legal Authority
Consistent with our proposal, we adopt the foregoing revisions to
the Robocall Mitigation Database requirements pursuant to the legal
authorities that the Commission relied on in its caller ID
authentication and call blocking orders, namely sections 201(b),
202(a), and 251(e) of the Communications Act, the Truth in Caller ID
Act, and our ancillary authority. We conclude that the Commission has
authority under 31 U.S.C. 3512(b) and Part 1, Subpart O of the
Commission's rules to make administrative enhancements pertaining to
CORES. We further conclude that sections 501, 502, and 503 of the
Communications Act provide authority to establish forfeiture amounts
for submitting inaccurate or false certification data to the Robocall
[[Page 351]]
Mitigation Database. We note that no commenter questioned our proposed
legal authority. One commenter argues that the Commission's proposed
forfeiture amounts exceed its statutory authority under the TRACED Act.
However, we conclude that sections 501, 502, and 503 of the Act provide
independent legal authority to establish forfeiture amounts, and
therefore, we need not rely on the TRACED Act.
As explained above, we rely on our authority under section 8 of the
Communications Act to add Robocall Mitigation Database filings to the
Commission's Schedule of Application Fees. We adopt our tentative
conclusion from the NPRM that submissions to the Robocall Mitigation
Database constitute ``applications'' within the meaning of the RAY
BAUM's Act, consistent with our prior implementation of our section 8
authority. The statute requires that our section 8 fees be deposited in
the general fund of the Treasury. That Congressional requirement does
not change the fact that Congress also directs that the fees be keyed
to our processing costs. Thus, INCOMPAS's and CCA's arguments do not
alter the statutory requirements or our analysis of our section 8
obligations. With the additional exception of NCTA, whose arguments we
address above, commenters otherwise do not dispute our legal authority
to impose a filing fee. We therefore adopt our tentative conclusions
from the NPRM and find that section 8 of the Act authorizes the
imposition of a filing fee.
III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
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, we have prepared a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible
impact of the rule changes contained in this Report and Order on small
entities. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
The Report and Order takes important steps in the fight against
illegal robocalls by adopting rules to improve the overall quality of
Robocall Mitigation Database (RMD) submissions and strengthen the
procedures providers must follow to submit, update, and maintain
accurate filings. Specifically, the Report and Order: (1) requires
providers to update any information submitted to the Commission
Registration System (CORES) within 10 business days of any change to
that information; (2) adopts base forfeiture amounts for submitting
false or inaccurate information to the RMD; (3) directs the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau) to establish a dedicated reporting
mechanism for deficient filings; (4) directs the Bureau to issue
additional guidance, educational materials, and ``best practices'' for
filing in the RMD; (5) and concludes that RMD submissions are
``applications'' within the meaning of the RAY BAUM's Act and requires
that providers remit a $100 application processing fee for initial
submissions and annually thereafter. Through these actions, the Report
and Order strengthens the RMD as a compliance and consumer protection
tool.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
Though there were no comments raised that specifically addressed
the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA, the Commission
did receive comments addressing the burdens on small providers in
response to the NPRM. Specifically, one commenter opposed the
Commission's proposals to: (1) 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; (2) establish a
separate base forfeiture amount for submitting false or inaccurate
information to the RMD; and (3) require providers to remit a filing fee
for RMD submissions, arguing that such proposals would be unduly
burdensome and potentially devastating to small voice service
providers. The Commission was persuaded by commenter's arguments
regarding the severe consequences of being blocked, and declined to
adopt its proposal to authorize permissive blocking. Regarding the
proposal to establish a separate base forfeiture, the Commission found
that the amount of $10,000--below the statutory maximum--serves as an
appropriate middle ground between competing commenters' views regarding
the appropriateness and amount of a forfeiture. Finally, the Commission
concluded that a $100 filing fee is appropriate and manageable, and
further determined that assessment of the fee will occur only at the
time of initial submission and annually thereafter, thereby limiting
concerns that filers would find it cost prohibitive to update filings.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the
RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA),
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed
rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any
comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``mall 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 Small Business
Administration's (SBA) 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
[[Page 352]]
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 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.
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 (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 several types of competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with a 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 a 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.
[[Page 353]]
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 a 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 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 $44 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. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications
service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor
collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be
classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
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 a 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 2021 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 a 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
[[Page 354]]
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 a 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 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 telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol
(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 $40 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.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The Report and Order creates new compliance obligations for small
and other entities by requiring providers to follow additional
procedures to submit, update, and maintain accurate filings in the RMD.
These changes affect small and other companies, and apply to all the
classes of regulated entities identified above. Specifically, the
Report and Order requires providers to update any information submitted
to CORES within 10 business days of any change to that information;
establishes a base forfeiture of $10,000 for each violation for filers
that submit false or inaccurate information to the Database, and a base
forfeiture of $1,000 for failure to update information that has changed
in the RMD within 10 business days; and requires providers to recertify
their RMD filings annually. Attendant with this final change, the
Report and Order also requires providers to remit a $100 filing fee for
initial and subsequent annual submissions, and applies the Commission's
red-light rule to RMD filings, whereby the Commission will not process
applications and other requests for benefits by parties that owe non-
tax debt to the Commission.
While there is not detailed information currently on the record to
determine whether small entities will be required to hire professionals
to comply with its decisions in the Report and Order, we find that the
forfeiture fees and additional obligations are not overly burdensome,
and take necessary steps to strengthen the RMD's effectiveness as a
compliance and consumer protection tool. Further, section 503 of the
Act allows for penalties to be adjusted depending on the specific
circumstances of each case. New obligations to update information in
CORES within 10 days are aligned with existing obligations to update
the RMD in a similar timeframe, and therefore should not be overly
burdensome to small providers.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the steps
the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on
small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule
and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.''
The Report and Order considered alternatives that may minimize the
economic impact on small providers. In adopting its proposal to require
providers to update any information submitted to CORES within 10
business days of any change to that information, the Commission assumed
the rule would impose no significant costs on CORES users or present
any significant countervailing burdens, including for small providers
because it aligns with existing obligations to update the RMD, and no
commenters disagreed or otherwise opposed the proposal. Recognizing
arguments in the record that fines may lead to unintended harmful
effects on small companies, the Commission established a base
forfeiture amount below the statutory maximum for submitting false or
inaccurate information to the RMD. The Commission also agreed with
commenters that inadvertent errors or minor lapses in compliance should
not result in the same penalties as willful misconduct, and adopted a
base forfeiture amount of $1000 for failure to update RMD filings
within 10 business days--significantly lower than the $10,000 base
forfeiture amount for submitting false or inaccurate data in the first
instance. The Commission considered comments disputing the RMD filing
fee as an application fee, but found it to be analogous to other filing
requirements. The Commission found that a $100 filing fee is an
appropriate amount to cover the cost of processing RMD filings, and,
along with an annual recertification requirement, is minimally
burdensome for small providers, as evidenced by the record.
Nevertheless, the Commission adopted an approach whereby the assessment
of the fee will occur only at the time of initial submission and
annually thereafter, as opposed to each time a provider makes minor
corrections to
[[Page 355]]
RMD filings, reducing the cost of updating filings for small and other
providers. In adopting a two-factor authentication solution for
accessing the Database, the Commission disagreed with commenters that
characterized multi-factor authentication as costly and burdensome,
concluding that the added security afforded by a two-factor
authentication solution merits its use. The Commission nevertheless
acknowledged that such a solution could present logistical problems,
and directed the Wireline Competition Bureau and OMD to develop a two-
factor authentication solution with these potential issues in mind.
Finally, the Commission considered and declined to adopt a number
of proposals described in the NPRM, including requiring filers to
obtain a PIN in order to submit a filing and implementing any technical
data validation solutions, citing the potential burden on providers,
including small providers, and a lack of clear, countervailing
benefits. The Commission also declined to adopt its proposal to
authorize providers to engage in permissive blocking of voice 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, thereby reducing the risk and potential
burden of being blocked for small and other providers. The Commission
found other proposals, such as increasing the Commission's scrutiny of
certain filings and recommendations to facilitate the IP transition, to
be outside the scope of this proceeding.
G. Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.
IV. Procedural Matters
Paperwork Reduction Act. The Report and Order does not contain new
or substantively modified information collection requirements subject
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). This document
may contain non-substantive modifications to an approved information
collection. Any such modifications will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review pursuant to OMB's non-
substantive modification process.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission believes, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
concurs that these rules are non-major. As such, the rules are non-
major under the Congressional Review Act, section 251 of the Contract
with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. The
Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
V. Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i), 8, 201, 202, 227, 227b,
227(e), 251(e), 501, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 158, 201, 202, 227(e), 251(e), 501, 502, and
503, and 31 U.S.C. 3512(b), it is ordered that this Report and Order is
adopted.
It is further ordered that parts 1 and 64 of the Commission's rules
are amended as set forth in the Report and Order, Final Rules.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.4(b)(1) and
1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), this
Report and Order, including the rule revisions and redesignations
described in the Final Rules, shall be effective 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register, except for: (a) 47 CFR
1.8002(b)(2) and 47 CFR 64.6305(h), which may contain modifications to
existing information collection requirements that require review by the
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act; and (b) 47 CFR 1.1105, which
requires notice to Congress pursuant to section 9A(b)(2) of the
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 159A(b)(2), and also requires certain
updates to the FCC's information technology systems and internal
procedures to ensure efficient and effective implementation. Sections
1.8002(b)(2) and 64.6305(h) will not become effective until any
necessary OMB review is complete. Section 1.1105 will not take effect
until the requisite notice has been provided to Congress, the FCC's
information technology systems and internal procedures have been
updated, and the Commission publishes notice(s) in the Federal Register
announcing the effective date of such rules.
It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a copy of
this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Claims, Communications, Communications common carriers,
Communications equipment, Environmental impact statements, Equal access
to justice, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and
facilities, Government employees, Individuals with disabilities,
Internet, Investigations, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, and
Television.
47 CFR Part 64
Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Aleta Bowers,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1 and 64 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Subpart A--General Rules of Practice and Procedure
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 47
U.S.C. 1754, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.80 by revising ``Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(11)'' in
paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.80 Forfeiture proceedings.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 356]]
(11) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(11)--Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forfeitures Violation amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misrepresentation/lack of candor..................... (1)
Failure to file required DODC required forms, and/or $15,000
filing materially inaccurate or incomplete DODC
information.........................................
Construction and/or operation without an instrument 10,000
of authorization for the service....................
Failure to comply with prescribed lighting and/or 10,000
marking.............................................
Violation of public file rules....................... 10,000
Submitting inaccurate or false information to the 10,000
Robocall Mitigation Database (Continuing violation
until cured)........................................
Violation of political rules: Reasonable access, 9,000
lowest unit charge, equal opportunity, and
discrimination......................................
Unauthorized substantial transfer of control......... 8,000
Violation of children's television commercialization 8,000
or programming requirements.........................
Violations of rules relating to distress and safety 8,000
frequencies.........................................
False distress communications........................ 8,000
EAS equipment not installed or operational........... 8,000
Alien ownership violation............................ 8,000
Failure to permit inspection......................... 7,000
Transmission of indecent/obscene materials........... 7,000
Interference......................................... 7,000
Importation or marketing of unauthorized equipment... 7,000
Exceeding of authorized antenna height............... 5,000
Fraud by wire, radio or television................... 5,000
Unauthorized discontinuance of service............... 5,000
Use of unauthorized equipment........................ 5,000
Exceeding power limits............................... 4,000
Failure to Respond to Commission communications...... 4,000
Violation of sponsorship ID requirements............. 4,000
Unauthorized emissions............................... 4,000
Using unauthorized frequency......................... 4,000
Failure to engage in required frequency coordination. 4,000
Construction or operation at unauthorized location... 4,000
Violation of requirements pertaining to broadcasting 4,000
of lotteries or contests............................
Violation of transmitter control and metering 3,000
requirements........................................
Failure to file required forms or information........ 3,000
Per call violations of the robocall blocking rules... 2,500
Failure to make required measurements or conduct 2,000
required monitoring.................................
Failure to provide station ID........................ 1,000
Unauthorized pro forma transfer of control........... 1,000
Failure to maintain required records................. 1,000
Failure to update Robocall Mitigation Database within 1,000
10 business days (Continuing violation until cured).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Subpart G--Schedule of Statutory Charges and Procedures for Payment
0
3. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 1.1105 by revising the ``Table to
Sec. 1.1105'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1105 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings
for the wireline competition services.
Table to Sec. 1.1105--Wireline Competition Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of application Payment type code Fee amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic 214 Applications--Part CDU................... $1,445
63, Transfers of Control.
Domestic 214 Applications-- CDV................... 755
Special Temporary Authority.
Domestic 214 Applications--Part CDW................... 1,445
63 Discontinuances (Non-
Standard Review) (Technology
Transition Filings Subject to
Sec. 63.71(f)(2)(i) or Not
Subject to Streamlined
Automatic Grant, and Filings
From Dominant Carriers Subject
to 60-Day Automatic Grant.
Domestic 214 Applications--Part CDX................... 375
63 Discontinuances (Standard
Streamlined Review) (All Other
Domestic 214 Discontinuance
Fillings).
VoIP Numbering.................. CDY................... 1,560
Standard Tariff Filing.......... CQK................... 1,040
Complex Tariff Filing (annual CQL................... 7,680
access charge tariffs, new or
restructured rate plans)
(Large--all price cap LECs and
entities involving more than
100 LECs).
Complex Tariff Filing (annual CQM................... 3,840
access charge tariffs, new or
restructured rate plans)
(Small--other entities).
Application for Special CQN................... 420
Permission for Waiver of Tariff
Rules.
Waiver of Accounting Rules...... CQP................... 5,185
Universal Service Fund Auction CQQ................... 3,480
(combined long-form and short-
form fee, paid only by winning
bidder).
Initial Robocall Mitigation CEA................... 100
Database Filing.
Annual Robocall Mitigation CEB................... 100
Database Recertification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 357]]
Subpart W--FCC Registration Number (FRN)
0
4. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 1.8002 by revising paragraph
(b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.8002 Obtaining an FRN.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Registrants shall update the information listed in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section within 10 business days of any change to that
information either by updating the information on-line at the CORES
link at <a href="http://www.fcc.gov">www.fcc.gov</a> or by filing FCC Form 161 (CORES Update/Change
Form).
* * * * *
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
Subpart HH--Caller ID Authentication
0
5. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub.
L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
0
6. Delayed indefinitely, amend Sec. 64.6305 by adding paragraph (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 64.6305 Robocall mitigation and certification.
* * * * *
(h) Annual Recertification Requirement. In accordance with this
section and 47 CFR 1.16, all providers shall certify annually, on or
before March 1, that any information submitted to the Robocall
Mitigation Database is true and correct.
[FR Doc. 2026-00010 Filed 1-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 6, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.