DA-24-73A1.pdf

PUBLIC NOTICE

Federal Communications Commission

45 L Street NE

Washington, DC 20554

News Media Information 202 / 418-0500

Internet: https://www.fcc.gov

DA 24-73

Released: January 25, 2024

WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES ROBOCALL

MITIGATION DATABASE FILING DEADLINES AND INSTRUCTIONS

AND ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE DATES

WC Docket No. 17-97

This Public Notice announces effective dates and compliance deadlines for revised Robocall

Mitigation Database filing requirements and related rules adopted in the Sixth Caller ID Authentication

Report and Order, including the additions of and revisions to 47 CFR §§ 64.6303(c), 64.6305(d),

64.6305(e), 64.6305(f) and 64.6305(g).

Pursuant to these rules, all providers, regardless of whether they are required to implement

STIR/SHAKEN—including all intermediate providers and providers that lack control over the network

infrastructure necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN—are now required to file certifications and

robocall mitigation plans to the Robocall Mitigation Database.

They must also comply with expanded

content requirements for these submissions.

Providers newly required to file in the Robocall Mitigation

See Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97, Sixth Report and Order and Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-18, at 55, para. 125 (Mar. 17, 2023) (Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and

Order) (directing the Bureau “to announce effective dates for the additions of and revisions to 47 CFR §§

64.6303(c), 64.6305(d), 64.6305(e), 64.6305(f) and 64.6305(g), as redesignated by this Sixth Report and Order, by

subsequent Public Notice” following completion by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of any review

required under the Paperwork Reduction Act). On November 7, 2023, OMB approved the information collection

associated with these rules. OMB Control Number 3060-1285. Notice of OMB approval was published in the

Federal Register on January 25, 2024. 89 Fed. Reg. 4833 (Federal Register Notice). These provisions will be

effective February 26, 2024. Compliance with 47 CFR § 64.6305(g)(4) will be required no sooner than May 28,

2024.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 21, para. 37. Voice service providers, gateway providers, and

those non-gateway intermediate providers that receive unauthenticated Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) calls

directly from an originating provider are required to implement STIR/SHAKEN. See 47 CFR §§ 64.6301(a),

64.6302(c), (d). Non-gateway intermediate providers that do not receive unauthenticated SIP calls directly from

originating providers and providers who lack control over the network infrastructure necessary to implement

STIR/SHAKEN do not have an implementation obligation. See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at

10-11, para. 17; Call Authentication Trust Anchor, WC Docket No. 17-97, Second Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd

1859, 1868, para. 19 (2020) (citing Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Implementation of TRACED Act Section 6(a)

– Knowledge of Customers by Entities with Access to Numbering Resources, WC Docket Nos. 17-97 and 20-67,

Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3241, 3260, para. 40) (Second Caller

ID Authentication Report and Order). Some providers with an implementation obligation have been granted an

extension. See 47 CFR § 64.6304(a)(1)(iii), (b), (c). Providers claiming an implementation extension have always

been required to submit certifications and robocall mitigation plans to the Robocall Mitigation Database. See Sixth

Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 5-6, 7, 20, paras. 7-8, 10, 36.

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 20-29, paras. 36-52.

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

Database must submit their initial filings containing all required information and certifications by

February 26, 2024.

Existing filers must update their Robocall Mitigation Database submissions to

provide all newly required information and certifications by the same date.

Intermediate providers and voice service providers are already required to refuse traffic from any

voice service provider or gateway provider that is not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database.

Beginning on May 28, 2024, they will also be prohibited from accepting traffic from any non-gateway

intermediate provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database.

Stated differently, voice service

providers and intermediate providers must refuse to carry traffic from any provider that is not listed in the

Robocall Mitigation Database as of May 28, 2024.

The Robocall Mitigation Database submission portal is now open to accept new and updated

filings. To assist filers with compliance, this Public Notice provides an overview of the expanded

Robocall Mitigation Database filing requirements, along with filing instructions regarding the format of

required submissions.

I. EXPANDED ROBOCALL MITIGATION DATABASE FILING REQUIREMENTS AND

ASSOCIATED DEADLINES

In the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules requiring

all non-gateway intermediate providers, as well as voice service providers that have fully implemented

STIR/SHAKEN and those that lack control over the network infrastructure necessary to implement

STIR/SHAKEN, to meet the same “reasonable steps” general mitigation standard that previously applied

to gateway providers and voice service providers that had not fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN under

the Commission’s rules.

Pursuant to this standard, a provider’s program is “sufficient if it includes

detailed practices that can reasonably be expected to significantly reduce” the carrying or processing (for

intermediate providers) or origination (for voice service providers) of illegal robocalls.

Each provider

See 47 CFR § 64.6305(d), (e), (f). The Commission required all providers newly subject to the Robocall

Mitigation Database filing requirement, as well as existing filers subject to new or modified requirements, to submit

a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database, or amend their current certification, by the later of: (1) 30 days

following publication in the Federal Register of notice of approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

of any associated Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) obligations; or (2) any deadline set by the Bureau through Public

Notice. Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 27, para. 49.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 27, para. 49. In addition, non-gateway intermediate providers

must comply with the Commission’s rules regarding caller ID authentication in non-IP networks by February 26,

2024, including the Commission’s record keeping requirements. See 47 CFR § 64.6303(c); Sixth Caller ID

Authentication Report and Order at 15, para. 26.

See 47 CFR § 64.6305(g)(1), (3).

See id. § 64.6305(g)(4); Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, 29, paras. 50, 52.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 29, para. 52 (directing the Bureau to specify the form and

format of any submissions, and to provide appropriate instructions and training materials as necessary).

Id. at 17, para. 29. All providers newly covered by the general mitigation standard were required to meet that

standard by August 21, 2023. Id. at 20, para. 35 (requiring providers newly covered by the general mitigation

standard to meet that standard within 60 days following Federal Register publication of the Report and Order); see

88 Fed. Reg. 40096 (June 21, 2023) (announcing August 21, 2023 effective date for rules adopted in the Report and

Order, except for certain amendments that were delayed).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 18, para. 31; see Second Caller ID Authentication Report and

Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1900, para. 78 (obligation for voice service providers); Advanced Methods to Target and

Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97,

Sixth Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Order, Seventh Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 6865, 6907-08, para. 103 (2022)

(obligation for gateway providers) (Gateway Provider Order).

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

“must comply with the practices” that its program requires, and its program is insufficient if the provider

“knowingly or through negligence” carries or processes calls (for intermediate providers) or originates

(for voice service providers) unlawful robocall campaigns.

Providers’ programs must also commit to

respond fully, within 24 hours, to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the

industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping illegal

robocallers that use its service to originate, carry, or process illegal robocalls.

Universal Robocall Mitigation Database Filing Obligation. Consistent with the expanded

robocall mitigation obligations adopted in the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, by

February 26, 2024, all providers must submit or resubmit a filing to the Robocall Mitigation Database

that includes the following: (1) a certification stating that all calls that they originate on their network are

subject to a robocall mitigation program meeting the requirements above, that any prior certification has

not been removed by Commission action and they have not been prohibited from filing in the Robocall

Mitigation Database, and whether they have fully, partially, or not implemented STIR/SHAKEN on the

IP portions of their networks;

(2) a robocall mitigation plan that describes the specific “reasonable

steps” the provider has taken to avoid the origination, carrying, or processing of illegal robocall traffic as

part of its robocall mitigation program, and includes other required contents described below;

(3) the

provider’s business name, address, and other identifying information;

and (4) certain additional

information as described below.

Additional Information to be Provided on the Submission Form. In the Sixth Caller ID

Authentication Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules requiring all providers—including those

newly obligated to file and those with an existing filing—to submit additional information with their

certifications and mitigation plans.

Specifically, new and existing filers will be required to provide the

following additional information on the submission form: (1) the role(s) they are playing in the call

chain;

(2) detailed information supporting any claimed STIR/SHAKEN implementation extension or

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 18, para. 31; see Second Caller ID Authentication Report and

Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1900, para. 78; Gateway Provider Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 6908, para. 103.

47 CFR § 64.6305(a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2); see Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 18-19, para. 31;

Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls, Call Authentication Trust Anchor, CG Docket No.

17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, Seventh Report and Order, Eighth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Third

Notice of Inquiry, FCC 23-37, at 23, para. 52 (May 19, 2023).

47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(1); see also Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 23, 25, paras.

42, 46.

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 20, 22-23, paras. 36, 40-41; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2),

(e)(2), (f)(2).

Such information includes: (1) the business name(s) and primary address of the provider; (2) other business names

in use by the provider; (3) all business names previously used by the provider; (4) whether the provider is also a

foreign voice service provider; and (5) the name, title, department, business address, telephone number, and email

address of one person within the company responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues. See Sixth

Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 23-24, paras. 42-43; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(4), (e)(4), (f)(4).

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 24-27, paras. 43-48; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(1)-(2), (d)(4),

(e)(1)-(2), (e)(4), (f)(1)-(2), (f)(4).

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 21-27, paras. 37-48.

Id. at 24-25, para. 44. Specifically, providers must indicate whether they are: (1) a voice service provider with a

STIR/SHAKEN implementation obligation serving end-users; (2) a voice service provider with a STIR/SHAKEN

obligation acting as a wholesale provider originating calls; (3) a voice service provider without a STIR/SHAKEN

obligation; (4) a non-gateway intermediate provider with a STIR/SHAKEN obligation; (5) a non-gateway

intermediate provider without a STIR/SHAKEN obligation; (6) a gateway provider with a STIR/SHAKEN

(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

exemption;

(3) information regarding their principals, affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies;

(4) a statement whether they are subject to a Commission, law enforcement, or regulatory agency action

or investigation due to suspected unlawful robocalling or spoofing and provide information concerning

any such actions or investigations;

and (5) the filer’s Operating Company Number (OCN) if they have

one.

The submission form will prompt this information from the filer via clearly-labeled checkboxes,

dropdown menus, and text fields, as described in more detail in the filing instructions provided below.

All required fields must be completed before a filing can be submitted.

Additional Information to be Provided with Robocall Mitigation Plans. Consistent with existing

filers’ prior obligations, all providers must upload a robocall mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation

Database portal that describes the specific “reasonable steps” the provider has taken to avoid, as

applicable, the origination, carrying, or processing of illegal robocall traffic as part of its robocall

mitigation program.

Gateway providers must also provide a description of how they have complied

with the know-your-upstream provider requirement in section 64.1200(n)(5) of the Commission’s rules.

In addition, as part of their obligation to describe with particularity their specific mitigation practices:

(1) voice service providers must describe how they are meeting their existing obligation to take

affirmative, effective measures to prevent new and renewing customers from originating illegal calls;

(2) non-gateway intermediate providers and voice service providers must, like gateway providers,

describe any “know-your-upstream provider” procedures in place designed to mitigate illegal robocalls;

and (3) all providers must describe any call analytics systems they use to identify and block illegal traffic,

(Continued from previous page)

obligation; (7) a gateway provider without a STIR/SHAKEN obligation; and/or (8) a foreign provider. Id.; 47 CFR

§ 64.6305(d)(4)(vi), (e)(4)(vi), (f)(4)(vi).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 25, para. 45; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2)(i), (e)(2)(i), (f)(2)(i).

Specifically, a filer asserting it does not have an obligation to implement STIR/SHAKEN because of an ongoing

extension, or because it lacks control over the network infrastructure necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN, must

both explicitly state the rule that exempts it from compliance and explain in detail why that exemption applies to the

filer. Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 25, para. 45.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 25-26, para. 46. Filers must provide sufficient detail

regarding their ownership and management to facilitate the Commission’s ability to determine whether the provider

has been prohibited from filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Id. If the filer requires more space than is

provided on the submission form, they may include this information as part of their robocall mitigation plan.

Id. at 26-27, para. 47; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2)(iv), (e)(2)(iv), (f)(2)(iv). This reporting requirement is limited to

formal actions and investigations that have been commenced or issued pursuant to a written notice or other

instrument containing findings by the law enforcement or regulatory agency that the filing entity has been or is

suspected of the illegal activities itemized above, including, but not limited to, notices of apparent liability,

forfeiture orders, state or federal civil lawsuits or criminal indictments, and cease-and-desist notices. Sixth Caller ID

Authentication Report and Order at 26, para. 47.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 27, para. 48; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(4)(vii), (e)(4)(vii),

(f)(4)(vii).

47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(ii).

Id. § 64.6305(e)(2)(ii); see also id. § 64.1200(n)(4) (“A voice service provider must . . . [i]f the provider acts as

a gateway provider, take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that any foreign originating provider or

foreign intermediate provider from which it directly receives traffic is not using the gateway provider to carry or

process a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S. network.”).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 22, para. 40.

47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2)(ii); see also id. § 64.1200(n)(4).

Id. § 64.6305(d)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(ii).

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

including whether they use a third-party vendor or vendors and the name of the vendor(s).

To comply

with the new requirements to describe their “new and renewing customer” and “know-your-upstream

provider” procedures, providers must describe any contractual provisions with end-users or upstream

providers designed to mitigate illegal robocalls.

All mitigation plans must be submitted in PDF format.

We caution providers to carefully review their robocall mitigation plans to ensure they provide

sufficient detail for the Commission to identify the specific steps a provider is taking to mitigate illegal

robocalls and assess whether they are reasonable. The Commission has made clear that robocall

mitigation plans that fail to provide sufficient information may be deemed facially deficient and subject to

the expedited removal procedure adopted in the Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order.

Indeed, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau has initiated actions to remove facially deficient filings

from the Robocall Mitigation Database.

Accordingly, while a sufficient robocall mitigation plan is not

necessarily a lengthy one, providers should ensure that their plans contain detailed information that

responds to each requirement of the Commission’s rules.

Providers That Play More Than One Role in the Call Chain. Some new and existing filers may

play different roles in the call chain depending on the source of the call and their particular network and

business model. For example, a voice service provider may originate some traffic and act as a non-

gateway intermediate provider and/or gateway provider for other traffic originated elsewhere. Such

providers must indicate on the submission form that they are certifying as more than one provider-type,

and will be presented with up to three sets of certification options—one set containing the required

certifications for voice service providers,

one set containing the required certifications for gateway

providers,

and one set containing the required certifications for non-gateway intermediate providers,

Id. § 64.6305(d)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(ii), (f)(2)(ii).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 22, para. 40. Providers are not required to submit contractual

provisions, but to describe them in general terms, including whether such provisions are typically included in their

contracts. Id. at 22, para. 40 n.154.

See id. at 32-33, para. 61. The Commission provided the following non-exclusive examples of filings that may be

deemed facially deficient: (1) a request for confidentiality with no underlying substantive filing; (2) only non-

responsive data or documents (e.g., a screenshot from the Commission’s website of a provider’s FCC Registration

Number data or other document that does not describe robocall mitigation efforts); (3) information that merely states

how STIR/SHAKEN generally works, with no specific information about the provider’s own robocall mitigation

efforts; or (4) a certification that is not in English and lacks a certified English translation. Id. The Commission

found that such filings fail to submit “even the most basic information required” to determine if the steps a provider

is taking to mitigate illegal robocalls are reasonable. Id.

See Viettel Business Solutions Company, EB-TCD-23-00034918, Order, DA 23-979 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Etihad

Etisalat (Mobily), EB-TCD-23-00034920, Order, DA 23-967 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Claude ICT Poland Sp. z o. o. dba

TeleCube.PL, EB-TCD-23-00034944, Order, DA 23-961 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Nervill LTD, EB-TCD-23-00034946,

Order, DA 23-970 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Textodog Inc. dba Textodog and Textodog Software Inc., EB-TCD-23-

00035605, Order, DA 23-976 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Phone GS, EB-TCD-23-00035606, Order, DA 23-972 (EB Oct.

16, 2023); Computer Integrated Solutions dba CIS IT & Engineering, EB-TCD-23-00035613, Order, DA 23-962

(EB Oct. 16, 2023); Datacom Specialists, EB-TCD-23-00035614, Order, DA 23-963 (EB Oct. 16, 2023);

DomainerSuite, Inc., EB-TCD-23-00035615, Order, DA 23-964 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Evernex SMC PVT LTD, EB-

TCD-23-00035616, Order, DA 23-966 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); Humbolt Voip, EB-TCD-23-00035617, Order, DA 23-

965 (EB Oct. 16, 2023); My Taxi Ride Inc, EB-TCD-23-00035618, Order, DA 23-968 (EB Oct. 16, 2023).

Only a single Robocall Mitigation Database filing can be associated with a given FCC Registration Number

(FRN), and therefore a provider that plays more than one role in the call chain will not be permitted to submit more

than one filing to the Robocall Mitigation Database using the same FRN. See the Robocall Mitigation Database

Filing Instructions for more information, available at https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/rmd-instructions.pdf.

See 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(1).

See id. § 64.6305(e)(1).

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

depending on which provider-type(s) they select on the form. A non-gateway intermediate provider that

previously submitted a certification and, if applicable, a robocall mitigation plan to the Robocall

Mitigation Database as a voice service provider, gateway provider, or combined gateway and voice

service provider, must amend its current certification and any mitigation plan to comply with the

requirements described in this Public Notice.

A provider that plays more than one role in the call chain

need only submit a single mitigation plan, but should explain the mitigation steps it undertakes in each

role, to the extent those mitigation steps are different.

Amended certifications and associated robocall

mitigation plans must also be submitted by February 26, 2024.

Filings Imported from the Intermediate Provider Registry. To the extent a non-gateway

intermediate provider’s filing was imported into the Robocall Mitigation Database via the Intermediate

Provider Registry, that Robocall Mitigation Database entry is not sufficient to meet the non-gateway

intermediate provider’s affirmative obligation to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation

Database.

Such providers must submit an affirmative filing and certification consistent with the filing

requirements and instructions provided in this Public Notice.

In light of non-gateway intermediate providers’ affirmative obligation to submit a certification

and mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database, the Bureau has determined that it is no longer

necessary to import filings from the Intermediate Provider Registry or to maintain current imported

filings.

Accordingly, on February 26, 2024, the Bureau will cease importing filings from the

Intermediate Provider Registry and will remove all current imported filings from the Robocall Mitigation

Database.

(Continued from previous page)

See id. § 64.6305(f)(1).

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 27, para. 49 (“Existing filers subject to new or modified

requirements adopted in this . . . Order must amend their filings with the newly required information by the . . .

deadline.”). The certification option(s) the provider previously selected when it certified as a voice service provider

and/or gateway provider will not be pre-filled on the submission form. The filer will be required to select or re-

select a certification option for each relevant provider-type before the filing can be submitted. See the Robocall

Mitigation Database filing instructions for more information, available at

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/rmd-instructions.pdf.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 22, para. 39.

See id. at 27, para. 49; Federal Register Notice, 89 Fed. Reg. at 4833.

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, para. 51.

Previously, all intermediate providers were imported into the Robocall Mitigation Database from the rural call

completion database’s Intermediate Provider Registry so that all intermediate providers would be represented

therein, giving downstream providers “confidence that any provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database is

out of compliance with [the Commission’s] rules, rather than leaving the potential for uncertainty about whether a

provider . . . was not required to be included in the database because it does not originate traffic.” Second Caller ID

Authentication Report and Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 1904, para. 87 n.340; see also 47 CFR § 64.6305(g) (requiring

intermediate providers and terminating voice service providers to accept calls from a domestic voice service

provider, foreign provider, gateway provider, or non-gateway intermediate provider only if that provider is listed in

the Robocall Mitigation Database). Now that all providers, regardless of whether they originate traffic, including

gateway and non-gateway intermediate providers, are required to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation

Database, it is no longer necessary to import filings from the Intermediate Provider Registry or maintain current

imported filings to facilitate compliance with the requirements of section 64.6305(g).

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 29, para. 52 (“We . . . delegate to the . . . Bureau the

authority to make the necessary changes to the Robocall Mitigation Database to indicate whether a non-gateway

intermediate provider has made an affirmative filing (as opposed to being imported as an intermediate provider) . . .

and to announce its determination as part of its guidance.”); Gateway Provider Order, 37 FCC Rcd at 6885, para. 48

(“Consistent with our direction to the . . . Bureau to make the necessary changes to the portal to effectuate the rules

we adopt today, we direct the Bureau to determine how to manage the imported data of gateway providers . . . .”).

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

Obligations on Downstream Intermediate Providers and Voice Service Providers. In the Sixth

Caller ID Authentication Report and Order, the Commission adopted a rule prohibiting “downstream

providers . . . from accepting any traffic from a non-gateway intermediate provider not listed in the

Robocall Mitigation Database, either because the provider did not file or their certification was

removed . . . as part of an enforcement action.”

The Commission stated that compliance with this rule

would be required no sooner than “90 days following the deadline for non-gateway intermediate providers

to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database.”

With the filing deadline now established

for February 26, 2024, this prohibition will go into effect on May 28, 2024. As of that date,

intermediate providers and voice service providers will be prohibited from accepting calls directly from a

non-gateway intermediate provider if that non-gateway intermediate provider’s filing does not appear in

the Robocall Mitigation Database.

The Bureau will remove from the Robocall Mitigation Database the

filing and certification of any provider that is de-listed pursuant to an enforcement action.

II. CERTIFICATION FILING INSTRUCTIONS

All providers must submit or resubmit their certification, mitigation plan, identification and other

required information, and contact information via the Robocall Mitigation Database portal on the

Commission’s website at https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_welcome.

All

certifications and robocall mitigation program descriptions submitted to the Robocall Mitigation Database

must be in English or with a certified English translation,

and must be signed by an officer in conformity

with section 1.16.

Updated instructions for submitting a certification and accompanying information can be found at

https://www.fcc.gov/files/rmd-instructions. New and existing filers must submit any necessary updates

regarding changes to their certification, mitigation plan, identification or other required information, or

contact information to the Commission within 10 business days of the change.

Public Database Location. The Robocall Mitigation Database is publicly available on the

Commission’s website at https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_listings. A list of all

providers with current filings in the database, published as a .csv file, may be downloaded at any time at

https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/rmd?id=rmd_welcome.

Confidential Submissions. Providers may request that materials or information submitted to the

Commission in their robocall mitigation plans be withheld from public inspection, consistent with the

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, para. 50; see also 47 CFR § 64.6305(g)(4).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, para. 50.

47 CFR § 64.6305(g)(4); see also Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, para. 51.

See Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 29, para. 52 (“We . . . delegate to the . . . Bureau the

authority to make the necessary changes to the Robocall Mitigation Database to indicate . . . whether any provider’s

filing has been de-listed as part of an enforcement action, and to announce its determination as part of its

guidance.”).

47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(3)(i), (e)(3)(i), (f)(3)(i).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 24, para. 42; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(2), (e)(2), (f)(2).

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 24, para. 42; 47 CFR § 64.6305(d)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(ii), (f)(3)(ii).

Id. § 64.6305(d)(5), (e)(5), (f)(5); see also Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 24, 27, paras. 42,

49.

This list excludes providers with filings that have been removed pursuant to an enforcement action or were

voluntarily deleted.

Federal Communications Commission DA 24-73

Commission’s confidentiality rules.

To do so, providers must submit a request for confidential

treatment of that information in WC Docket No. 17-97 through the Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS).

Providers must then upload both the redacted (i.e., public) and unredacted (i.e.,

non-public) PDF copies of their robocall mitigation plans via the Robocall Mitigation Database portal.

To do so, providers should check the box stating that they request that some of the filing’s contents be

kept confidential in the “Upload” section of the Robocall Mitigation Database submission form and

follow the prompts to upload both the redacted and unredacted versions of their plans.

We remind

providers that requests for confidential treatment and associated redactions that are overbroad or

otherwise inconsistent with the Commission’s rules will be rejected. Comprehensive instructions for

submitting confidential filings via the portal are available at https://www.fcc.gov/files/rmd-instructions.

For further information, please contact Erik Beith, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition

Policy Division, at (202) 418-0756 or by email at [email protected].

- FCC -

Sixth Caller ID Authentication Report and Order at 28, para. 49; see also Wireline Competition Bureau Adopts

Protective Order for Robocall Mitigation Program Descriptions, WC Docket No. 17-97, Public Notice, Attach., 36

FCC Rcd 14562, 14566, para. 2 (WCB 2021) (defining confidential information filed as part of a robocall mitigation

plan as information filed consistent with the protective order or sections 0.459 or 0.461 of the Commission’s rules)

(Protective Order); 47 CFR § 0.459.

47 CFR § 0.459; see also Protective Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 14569, para. 5. Confidentiality requests should not be

submitted through the Robocall Mitigation Database portal.

Protective Order, 36 FCC Rcd at 14569, para. 5.