On July 23, 2026, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”) proposing to: (1) strengthen obligations for providers filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database (“RMD”); and (2) deter bad actors and non-compliant providers from entering or remaining in the RMD. The item was adopted at the Commission’s June Open Meeting. Specifically, the FNPRM seeks comment on the following:
Strengthening Filing Obligations
1. Which Entities Must File
- The FCC seeks comment on whether to further clarify what constitutes a “voice service provider” required to file in the RMD, including confirming that the definition applies regardless of an entity’s technological solution or facilities, classification or commercial name of its service, or Commission authorization status.
- The FCC proposes to codify the existing requirement that parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries that independently meet the definition of “voice service provider” must each submit a separate RMD filing.
- The FCC seeks comment on measures to ensure transparency and accountability when providers use third parties to submit RMD filings on their behalf, including whether to require disclosure of the third party’s contact information and FCC Registration Number.
- The FCC seeks comment on whether further clarification is necessary with respect to foreign voice service provider filing obligations.
2. Information to Be Submitted
- The FCC proposes new certifications, including that the filer has not submitted false, misleading, or inaccurate information (“lack of candor”), and that the filer is in compliance with all applicable Commission rules pertaining to robocalls and other illegal calls.
- The FCC proposes to strengthen the requirement that providers identify and explain the basis for any claimed STIR/SHAKEN implementation exemption, and to adopt a new temporary exemption for providers in the process of obtaining a Service Provider Code (“SPC”) token.
- The FCC proposes to codify and expand business identifying information requirements, that largely aligns with the Know Your Upstream Provider (“KYUP”) with the information including disclosure of at least one human principal (with title, contact information, country of residence, and citizenship) and a U.S. registered agent for service of process.
- With respect to the Robocall Mitigation Plan, the FCC proposes:
- To heighten the robocall mitigation program standard from “reasonable steps” to “affirmative, effective measures” and to expand its scope from “illegal robocalls” to all “illegal calls.” The FCC further proposes to “raise the standard” for the level of information to be submitted with the robocall mitigation plan by requiring that robocall mitigation descriptions be “detailed.”
- To require providers to disclose whether they use third parties for: call analytics, STIR/SHAKEN call signing, Know Your Customer (“KYC”)/KYUP compliance, or RMD filing submission, and to identify those third parties; and to require additional detailed information about many of these aspects, regardless of whether a third party is relied upon.
3. Submitting and Viewing Information
- The FCC proposes that certain filing categories be submitted directly on the RMD form rather than as an uploaded document, and that robocall mitigation plans be submitted as machine-readable PDFs.
- The FCC proposes that certain information, such as principal contact information and third-party disclosures, not be made publicly viewable in the RMD.
- The FCC seeks comment on whether to modify the 10-business-day update requirement and the March 1 annual recertification deadline.
Keeping Bad Actor Providers Out of the RMD
1. Preventing Entry
- The FCC proposes to establish a new rule that a filing does not “appear” in the RMD until it has been accepted and published, and to authorize the Wireline Competition Bureau (“Bureau”) to reject, withhold publication of, or place into pending status any filing that appears non-compliant or evasive.
- The FCC seeks comment on requiring RMD filers to obtain and submit a standby letter of credit from a bank meeting the FCC’s capital requirements, (or alternative financial assurance, such as a surety bond), along with a bankruptcy opinion of counsel to deter bad actors from filing. The FCC asks if this requirement should be applied to all filers or whether it should be limited to certain entities or to certain circumstances.
2. Identifying Bad Actors Already in the RMD
- The FCC proposes to direct the Bureau to develop technical tools to identify deficient, duplicate, or dummy filings and filings associated with known bad actors.
- The FCC proposes to require all domestic voice service providers with RMD filings to submit Foreign Adversary Control attestations.
- The FCC seeks comment on expediting the traceback process and improving information sharing with the STIR/SHAKEN Governance Authority.
3. Removal Tools
- The FCC proposes to codify a comprehensive list of causes for removal, including deficient filings, lack of candor, traceback violations, inadequate mitigation measures, impersonation, and national security concerns.
- The FCC proposes to codify Three-Step (for non-material deficiencies) and Two-Step (for other causes, with a shortened 5-day cure period) removal processes, and seeks comment on a possible One-Step process for egregious conduct.
- The FCC seeks comment on establishing a suspension process, including for failure to complete annual recertification, and on requiring providers subject to removal, suspension, or blocking orders to notify their customers.
4. Keeping Removed Providers Out
- The FCC seeks comment on mechanisms to identify and reject unauthorized re-filings made by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of a removed provider or its alter ego.
- The FCC proposes to codify reinstatement standards and procedures, and seeks comment on establishing an RMD-specific debarment or participation-bar framework applicable to removed providers and associated individuals.
- The FCC seeks comment on downstream provider obligations, including how frequently providers must check the RMD, how quickly they must cease accepting calls from a removed provider, and whether to harmonize RMD-based call refusal obligations with the mandatory blocking rules under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(n).
Other Considerations
- The FCC proposes further streamlining amendments to align RMD terminology with the pending KYUP FNPRM, including replacing “certification” with “filing” and “illegal robocalls” with “illegal calls.”
- The FCC seeks comment on audit requirements and resources needed to administer the RMD.
- The FCC seeks comment on its legal authority under 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(b), 202(a), 251(e), the Truth in Caller ID Act, and the TRACED Act to adopt the proposed rules.
The following notable changes were made from the draft item:
- With respect to the impact of RMD misconduct on a provider’s ability to conduct business with the FCC, the adopted item also asks for comment on “to what extent [ ] attorneys who submit RMD filings for an entity that is subsequently subject to an RMD enforcement action [are] susceptible to potential censure, suspension, or disbarment from practice before the Commission under section 1.24(a) of the Commission’s rules,” and “[i]f remedies under section 1.24(a) already would apply to such attorneys, [whether] the same or similar remedies [should] apply to others who engaged in misconduct in connection with the RMD.” (¶ 108)
Once adopted, comments will be due 30 days after Federal Register publication, and reply comments will be due 60 days after publication.
Please Contact Us if you have any questions.