47 CFR 64.6305 - Robocall mitigation and certification

Publisher

Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School

URL

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/64.6305

Published

2026-01-06

Updated

unknown

Accessed

2026-09-16

HTTP status

200

License

LII republished with permission of the copyright owner; see LII terms of use; no-redistribution; short excerpts and locators only

Source notes citing this source

• A filer must update its Robocall Mitigation Database certification within 10 business days of any change to the required certification and identifying information. in context
• A provider may not block a voice call under any circumstances if the call is an emergency call placed to 911, and must make reasonable efforts to ensure it does not block calls from public safety answering points and government emergency numbers. in context
• The acceptance precondition applies to domestic voice service providers, and from April 11, 2023 to foreign voice or intermediate providers using US-pertinent NANP numbers in the caller ID and to gateway providers, and to non-gateway intermediate providers whose filing was affirmatively submitted. in context
• A provider may accept calls directly from another provider only if that provider's filing appears in the Robocall Mitigation Database and has not been de-listed pursuant to an enforcement action. in context
• All providers must certify annually on or before March 1 that their Robocall Mitigation Database information is true and correct. in context
• The required filing data include the provider's obligation category: direct end-user obligation, wholesale originator on behalf of others, or no obligation. in context
• Gateway providers must run a robocall mitigation program covering calls that use North American Numbering Plan resources pertaining to the United States in the caller ID field including reasonable steps to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic. in context
• Non-gateway intermediate providers carry the same structure of obligation as gateway providers: an appropriate robocall mitigation program plus reasonable steps to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic and a 24-hour traceback commitment. in context
• A provider that cannot implement STIR/SHAKEN because it lacks control over the network infrastructure must explain that basis in its filing rather than certify implementation. in context
• Robocall Mitigation Database certifications must be filed in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website and signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16. in context
• The robocall mitigation plan filed with a voice service provider certification must state the specific reasonable steps taken, including how the provider complies with its know-your-customer obligation under 47 CFR 64.1200(n)(4), its procedures to know its upstream providers, and the analytics systems it uses to identify and block illegal traffic naming any third-party analytics vendors. in context
• Each RMD certification must attest that any prior certification has not been removed by Commission action and that the provider has not been prohibited from filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database. in context
• The 24-hour traceback commitment runs to requests from the Commission, law enforcement and the industry traceback consortium, and is coupled to cooperation in investigating and stopping illegal robocallers using the provider's service. in context
• Where the Governance Authority revokes a provider's SPC token, the 10-business-day update clock is deferred until the 60-day Commission review window closes, or ten business days after a Wireline Competition Bureau final decision on appeal, or the 30-day formal appeal deadline if no appeal is filed. in context
• An RMD filer must certify one of exactly three STIR/SHAKEN states: complete implementation, partial implementation, or no implementation of the framework on any portion of its network. in context
• A certification must disclose whether in the prior two years the filer, or an entity with which it shares common ownership, management, directors or control, was subject to any formal action or investigation with findings about illegal robocalls or spoofing, or a deficient Robocall Mitigation Database certification or mitigation program description. in context
• Every voice service provider must implement an appropriate robocall mitigation program that includes reasonable steps to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic and a commitment to respond within 24 hours to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement and the industry traceback consortium. in context

Cite this source record

APA

WarmTransfer. (2026, January 6). 47 CFR 64.6305 - Robocall mitigation and certification. WarmTransfer. https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/sources/cornell-lii-47-cfr-64-6305

BibTeX

@misc{warmtransfer-cornell-lii-47-cfr-64-6305,
  title  = {47 CFR 64.6305 - Robocall mitigation and certification},
  author = {{WarmTransfer}},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://warmtransfer.net/knowledge/sources/cornell-lii-47-cfr-64-6305},
  note   = {Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, accessed 2026-09-16}
}