Rule2026-03066
Numbering Policies for Modern Communications
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
February 17, 2026
Effective
March 19, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules regarding direct access to numbers by providers of interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services. The Commission takes this action in furtherance of Congress' directive in the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act to examine ways to reduce access to telephone numbers by potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls. These actions continue to safeguard U.S. numbering resources and consumers, protect national security interests, promote public safety, and ensure compliance with other important Commission rules.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7153-7159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03066]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67; FCC 25-86; FR ID 331199]
Numbering Policies for Modern Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) adopts rules regarding direct access to numbers by
providers of interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP)
services. The Commission takes this action in furtherance of Congress'
directive in the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal
Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act to examine ways to reduce
access to telephone numbers by potential perpetrators of illegal
robocalls. These actions continue to safeguard U.S. numbering resources
and consumers, protect national security interests, promote public
safety, and ensure compliance with other important Commission rules.
DATES:
Effective date: March 19, 2026.
Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.
52.15(g)(3)(x)(E) until a document is published in the Federal Register
announcing a compliance date and revising or removing Sec.
52.15(g)(3)(x)(F).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Reth, Attorney Advisor,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d892b7aabcb9b6f68abdacb098bebbbbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c76534e585d52126e5948547c5a5f5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-1418. For additional information
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this document, contact Nicole Ongele at (202)
418-2991, or send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d383819293b5b0b0fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98c8cad9d8fefbfbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67, FCC 25-86,
adopted on December 18, 2025, and released on December 19, 2025. The
complete text of this document is available for download at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-86A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-86A1.pdf</a>. Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea8c8989dfdadeaa8c8989c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c5a5f5f090c087c5a5f5f125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0503.
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA) requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in the Third Report and Order on small entities. The
FRFA is set forth in Appendix B, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-updates-numbering-requirements-providers">https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-updates-numbering-requirements-providers</a>.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains new information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, will invite the general public to
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this
R&O as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order to Congress
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
OPEN Government Data Act. The OPEN Government Data Act, requires
agencies to make ``public data assets'' available under an open license
and as ``open Government data assets,'' i.e., in machine-readable, open
format, unencumbered by use restrictions other than intellectual
property rights, and based on an open standard that is maintained by a
standards organization. This requirement is to be implemented ``in
accordance with guidance by the Director'' of OMB. The term ``public
data asset'' means ``a data asset, or part thereof, maintained by the
Federal Government that has been, or may be, released to the public,
including any data asset, or part thereof, subject to disclose under
[the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)].'' A ``data asset'' is ``a
collection of data elements or data sets that may be grouped
together,'' and ``data'' is ``recorded information, regardless of form
or the media on which the data is recorded.'' We delegate authority to
the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), in consultation with the
agency's Chief Data and Analytics Officer and after seeking public
comment to the extent it deems appropriate, to determine whether any
data assets maintained or created by the Commission pursuant to the
rules adopted in the Third Report and Order are ``public data assets''
and if so, to determine when and to what extent such information should
be published as ``open Government data assets.'' In doing so, WCB shall
take into account the extent to which such data asserts should be made
publicly available because they are not subject to disclosure under the
FOIA. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(4), (6)-(7) (exemptions concerning
confidential commercial information, personal privacy, and information
compiled for law enforcement purposes, respectively).
Synopsis
Introduction
After nearly a decade, protections built into the VoIP numbering
authorization remain a critical defense in mitigating the risks
associated with bad actors accessing numbering resources. As we
continue to examine the nexus between interconnected VoIP providers,
robocalls, and direct access to numbers, we have identified further
actions we can take to strengthen these protections. Although our
current rules contain updated protections targeting illegal
robocalling, spoofing, and fraud, they are only applicable to
applicants seeking authorizations after the effective date of the rules
appended by the 2023 Second Report and Order. The rule changes we adopt
today make certain that all direct access authorization holders will be
subject to the same set of rules, expanding the scope of our robocall-
related, national security, and public safety protections. The Wireline
Competition Bureau will release a best practices Public Notice
outlining the required filings and process for existing authorization
holders. Additionally, the Second Further Notice sought comment
[[Page 7154]]
on a proposal to require direct access applicants to disclose a list of
states in which they intend to provide initial service, and on a
proposal to minimize harms that may arise from bad actors that access
numbering resources indirectly by holding their direct access
authorization holder ``partners'' accountable for their actions. These
matters raised in the Second Further Notice are not addressed in this
Third Report and Order.
Ensuring That All Direct Access Authorizations Serve the Public
Interest
We revise Sec. 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission's rules to include a
new requirement for all authorization holders whose authorizations were
issued prior to August 8, 2024, (that is, prior to the effective date
of the updated certification and information disclosure requirements
adopted in the Second Report and Order), to file the updated required
certifications and information disclosures. We also adopt a 30-day
deadline for these existing authorization holders to comply with the
updated filing requirements, i.e., existing authorization holders must
file the updated certifications and other information disclosures
within 30 days of the effective date of the rule changes adopted
herein. The certifications require that an officer or responsible
official of the company attests under penalty of perjury, pursuant to
Sec. 1.16 of the Commission's rules, that all statements in the
application are true and accurate. We also note that, by statute, any
person that knowingly and willfully makes a false statement shall be
fined or imprisoned or both.
Furthermore, if the new information submitted by the existing
authorization holder warrants further review, or the grantee is non-
compliant with filing the required information, the authorization may
be suspended, terminated, or revoked. At this time, we will not require
an interconnected VoIP provider to return its existing numbers if the
Bureau revokes its VoIP numbering authorization. This creates a uniform
framework for all authorization holders.
We require all authorization holders filing the updated
requirements or any authorization holder filing corrected information
to file in the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) through the
newly established Direct Access Authorization Holder Post-Grant
Communications intake docket (Inbox 52.15 (X)) and via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82c6c3c3c2e4e1e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cc888d8d8caaafafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>, unless the Bureau specifies another method. We note that
the Bureau may request additional documentation as necessary.
Certifying Compliance With Robocall-Related Rules
More than just a nuisance, illegal robocalls continue to expose
millions of American consumers to harmful risks. The Commission has
estimated that $10.5 billion is lost annually by consumers due to
illegal robocalls, not accounting for the non-quantifiable losses
suffered by consumers and the erosion of confidence in the nation's
telephone network. The Commission has also found that the potential
benefits resulting from eliminating the wasted time and nuisances
caused by illegal scam robocalls would exceed $3 billion annually. The
Commission receives more complaints about such illegal calls than about
anything else--approximately 120,000 last year alone. The Commission
received approximately 193,000 such complaints in 2019, 157,000 in
2020, 164,000 in 2021, and 119,000 in 2022 and in 2023. We remain
committed to protecting consumers and our communication networks from
bad actors who would seek to exploit numbering resources for such
purposes.
Robocall-related certifications. We revise Sec. 52.15(g)(3) of the
Commission's rules to require existing VoIP numbering authorization
holders--those that obtained direct access numbering authorizations
prior to August 8, 2024--to certify that:
<bullet> the authorization holder will not use the numbers obtained
pursuant to an interconnected VoIP provider numbering authorization to
knowingly transmit, encourage, assist, or facilitate illegal robocalls,
illegal spoofing, or fraud, in violation of robocall, spoofing, and
deceptive telemarketing obligations under 47 CFR 64.1200, 64.1604,
64.6300 et seq., and 16 CFR 310.3(b);
<bullet> the authorization holder has fully complied with all
applicable STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication and robocall mitigation
program requirements and filed a certification in the Robocall
Mitigation Database as required by 47 CFR 64.6301-64.6305; and
<bullet> neither the authorization holder nor any of its key
personnel identified in the application are or have been subject to a
Commission, law enforcement, or any regulatory agency investigation for
failure to comply with any law, rule, or order, including the
Commission's rules applicable to unlawful robocalls or unlawful
spoofing.
As voice service providers, interconnected VoIP providers must
comply with all regulations that target illegal robocalls that are
generally applicable to all voice service providers. Additionally,
interconnected VoIP providers acting as terminating, originating,
intermediate, and/or gateway providers must accordingly also comply
with the specific regulations targeting illegal robocalls that are
applicable to each type of provider.
As with the Second Report and Order, we received broad support from
governmental entities and other organizations for adding robocall-
specific certifications for existing authorization holders.
One commenter observed that our proposal ``would create a uniform
understanding of the information reviewed by the Commission prior to
approval and would prevent inadvertent competitive advantages for
providers that were potentially subject to lower standards of review.''
We agree. While other commenters opposed the robocall-related
certifications, we did not receive new opposition based on extending
the requirements to existing authorization holders, but a reiteration
of the same grounds in the Second Report and Order, e.g., that they are
burdensome, ineffective, etc. We disagree. We are not placing new
obligations on all direct access authorization holders, but instead are
now creating parity with all authorization holders by requiring the
former (pre-August 2024) VoIP numbering authorization holders to
certify that they will comply, or have complied, with certain
requirements. Importantly, as some of the authorizations date from
2016, it is important to ensure that all authorization holders are
equally compliant with our requirements and fully aware of important
robocall related obligations enacted since they first obtained their
VoIP numbering authorizations. Additionally, since the adoption of
these requirements for new applications in 2023, the Bureau has
processed 17 applications containing these certification requirements,
indicating that these applicants did not find the certifications overly
burdensome, and that the requirements have not had an anticompetitive
effect. Additionally, if these requirements have discouraged any
applicants that could not meet the certification requirements from
applying in the first place, that indicates the process is working as
intended as the Commission could not reasonably grant authorizations to
parties that could not meet such basic and necessary certifications.
Enhanced Disclosure and Review of Ownership and Control of Applicants
The Commission long has recognized that ``[i]llegal robocalling
often
[[Page 7155]]
originates from sources outside the United States,'' and that ``illegal
robocalls that originate abroad are a significant part of that robocall
problem.'' Particularly, ``international gateway traffic is a
significant source of fraudulent traffic.'' In the Second Report and
Order, we adopted rules requiring the disclosure of ownership and
control of applicants for the VoIP numbering authorization, enabling
greater transparency into who is seeking access to numbering resources
and if foreign ownership is involved. We now extend those same
requirements to all existing authorization holders, to provide a
comprehensive view of the VoIP numbering authorization program and
thwart foreign bad actors seeking to circumvent our rules. Extending
these critical reporting and disclosure requirements to all VoIP
numbering authorization holders will provide vital transparency into
our oversight of international gateway traffic.
Ownership and control information disclosures. We revise Sec.
52.15(g)(3) of the Commission's rules to require existing VoIP
numbering authorization holders to update their filings by providing
the same information, disclosures, and certifications required by 47
CFR 63.18(h) and (i). If the authorization holder does not have
information required to be provided under Sec. 63.18(h) and (i), the
authorization holder must include a certified statement to that effect.
If the updated ownership information submitted by an existing
authorization holder indicates a material change or discloses new
information such that additional investigation is necessary to confirm
that the authorization still serves the public interest, the Bureau has
delegated authority to direct the Numbering Administrator, pursuant to
its applicable procedures, to suspend all pending and future requests
for numbers while an investigation or referral for Executive Branch
agencies' review is warranted. We reiterate that at this time, we will
not require an interconnected VoIP provider to return its existing
numbers if the Bureau revokes its VoIP numbering authorization. This
creates a uniform framework for all authorization holders.
Duty to update ownership information. In the Second Report and
Order, we adopted changes to our rules requiring interconnected VoIP
providers that obtain direct access authorization under the revised
rules to submit an update to the Commission and each applicable state
within 30 days of any change to the reportable ownership information.
An applicable state is each state where the provider has acquired or
applied to receive numbers from the state at the time of the ownership
change. This includes an ongoing duty to update information when there
are changes in ownership or control of the authorization holder, as
required under our rules. The Commission may use the updated contact
information, certifications, or ownership or affiliation information to
determine whether a change in authorization status is warranted.
Similar to the record for robocall-related certifications, many
commenters support equal application of ownership and control
disclosure requirements among all applicants and authorization holders.
Some commenters maintain their general opposition to additional
requirements, but do not distinguish a specific burden for existing
authorization holders as opposed to applicants. We maintain that the
public interest benefit of a requirement to keep all ownership data up
to date across all VoIP numbering authorizations outweighs the minimal
burden on existing grantees. We also continue to cross-reference the
ownership and control information reporting requirements to ensure
consistency with other Commission licensing applications (e.g.,
international section 214 applications), and to minimize confusion and
administrative burden on filers. Strengthening our rules and empowering
Commission staff with the necessary information to appropriately
evaluate all VoIP numbering authorizations on an ongoing basis is
critical to our mission and the ongoing fight against illegal calls.
Certifying Compliance With Other Commission Rules
In the Second Report and Order, we adopted additional
certifications for applicants of the VoIP numbering authorization that
were designed to illustrate the applicant's compliance with other
important Commission rules enhancing public safety, preventing access
stimulation and intercarrier compensation abuse, and ensuring that the
Commission's broadband maps are accurate. By extending these additional
certifications to existing authorization holders, we not only ensure
grantees are aware of and complying with other important applicable
Commission requirements but also increase our enforcement capabilities
should authorization holders fall short of their obligations.
Consistent with the Commission's proposal in the Second VoIP Direct
Access Further Notice to require existing interconnected VoIP direct
access authorization holders to provide the same certification,
acknowledgments, and disclosures as new applicants, we also require
existing authorization holders to file an acknowledgement pursuant to
47 CFR 52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) ``that the authorization granted under this
paragraph (g)(3) is subject to compliance with the applicable
Commission numbering rules in this part; numbering authority delegated
to the states, and the state laws, regulations, and registration
requirements applicable to businesses operating in each state where the
applicant seeks numbering resources; and industry guidelines and
practices regarding numbering as applicable to telecommunications
carriers[.]'' Some commenters originally opposed requiring this
acknowledgement in 2023, but have not raised new arguments about
uniformly extending its applicability to existing authorization
holders, and have instead reiterated the same arguments the Commission
already rejected in the Second Report and Order. As the Commission
noted in the Second Report and Order, ``[b]y clarifying that all VoIP
direct access authorization holders must comply with other applicable
state laws, such as registration requirements, the new requirement will
make it more difficult for interconnected VoIP providers to evade
measures that enable states to generally address other consumer-
protection issues, including unlawful robocalling.''
We revise Sec. 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission's rules to require
existing VoIP numbering authorization holders to update their filings
with the following:
<bullet> a certification with accompanying evidence that the
authorization holder complies with its 911 obligations under Part 9 of
the Commission's rules--which include Next Generation 911
requirements--and that it complies with the provisions of the
Communications Assistance with Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.;
<bullet> a certification that the authorization holder complies
with the Access Stimulation rules under 47 CFR 51.914;
<bullet> proof that the authorization holder has filed FCC Forms
477 and 499, or a statement explaining why each such form is not yet
applicable.
Regarding CALEA, we remind VoIP providers of their existing
obligation to electronically file CALEA System Security and Integrity
plans with the FCC before commencing service consistent with 47 CFR
part 1, subpart Z. The FCC Form 477 filing system is no longer being
used to collect new FCC Form 477 submissions and remains open only for
filers to make corrections
[[Page 7156]]
to existing FCC Form 477 filings for data as of June 30, 2022, and
earlier.
We reiterate here that holders of all Commission authorizations,
including the VoIP numbering authorization, have a clear and
demonstrable duty to operate in the public interest. Where the
Commission grants a right or privilege, it unquestionably has the right
to revoke or deny that right or privilege in appropriate circumstances.
In the Second Report and Order, we adopted rules concerning the grounds
for revocation and/or termination of a VoIP numbering authorization. We
also delegated authority to the Wireline and Enforcement Bureaus to
direct the Numbering Administrator to suspend the authorization
holder's access to new numbering resources in certain circumstances and
following required procedures. Those same enforcement mechanisms apply
to all VoIP numbering applicants and authorization holders, including
the existing authorization holders submitting the updated requirements
as adopted today. If, upon review, Commission staff determine that an
existing authorization holder is non-compliant with submitting the
updated requirements, or if the information submitted is deemed
insufficient, or raises questions as to whether the authorization still
serves the public interest, then the authorization status may be
reviewed, leading to possible suspension, termination, and/or
revocation, as necessary.
One commenter supported the denial of new numbering requests, but
only in instances of material risk to national security or if it is
likely to perpetuate the origination of illegal robocalling. We
disagree and reaffirm that the Wireline and Enforcement Bureaus have
delegated authority to suspend an authorization holder's access to new
numbering resources in certain circumstances pending an investigation
and following required procedures. While in the course of considering
suspension, we should take into account specific concerns about
national security or unlawful robocalling, but willful violations of
Commission rules or other concerns to public health, interest or safety
will also be evaluated and may warrant a suspension of VoIP numbering
authorization.
Costs and Benefits
The rules we adopt in this Third Report and Order generally reflect
a mandate from the TRACED Act to reduce access to numbers by potential
perpetrators of illegal robocalls. We conclude that the expected
benefits will exceed the costs, which are minimal. The Commission found
in the Caller ID Authentication First Report and Order that widespread
deployment of the STIR/SHAKEN framework will increase its effectiveness
for both voice service providers and their subscribers, producing a
potential annual benefit floor of $13.5 billion due to the reduction in
nuisance calls and fraud. In addition, the Commission identified many
non-quantifiable benefits, such as restoring confidence in incoming
calls and ensuring reliable access to emergency and healthcare
communications. Consistent with the TRACED Act, the rules we adopt in
this Third Report and Order are intended to help unlock those benefits.
As the Commission has noted, an overall reduction in illegal robocalls
will greatly lower network costs by eliminating both the unwanted
traffic and the labor costs of handling numerous customer complaints.
The certifications and disclosures we adopt should place minimal
burdens on interconnected VoIP providers, and our formalization of the
application review process should impose small costs on Commission
staff. We therefore conclude that the rules we adopt in this Third
Report and Order will impose only a minimal cost on direct access
applicants while having the overall effect of materially lowering
network costs and raising consumer benefits.
Legal Authority
As established in the Second Report and Order, section 251(e) of
the Act provides sufficient authority for the requirements adopted in
this Third Report and Order, and section 6(a) of the TRACED Act
provides both supplemental and independent authority for those
requirements specifically related to fighting illegal robocalls. The
First VoIP Direct Access Further Notice proposed concluding that our
authority for adopting the new or revised direct access to numbers
application requirements for interconnected VoIP providers arises from
section 251(e) of the Act and section 6(a) of the TRACED Act.
Section 251(e)(1) of the Act grants the Commission ``exclusive
jurisdiction over those portions of the North American Numbering Plan
that pertain to the United States.'' Based on this grant, in the VoIP
Direct Access Order, the Commission concluded that section 251(e)(1)
provided it with authority ``to extend to interconnected VoIP providers
both the rights and obligations associated with using telephone
numbers.'' The Commission also has relied on section 251(e)(1) to
require interconnected and one-way VoIP providers to implement the
STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework and allow customers to
reach the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline by dialing 988.
Consistent with the Commission's well-established reliance on section
251(e) numbering authority with respect to interconnected VoIP
providers, we conclude that section 251(e)(1) allows us to further
refine our processes and requirements governing direct access to
numbers by interconnected VoIP providers.
We further conclude that section 6(a) of the TRACED Act provides us
with separate, additional authority to adopt our proposals related to
fighting illegal robocalls. Section 6(a)(1) gives the Commission
authority ``to determine how Commission policies regarding access to
number resources, including number resources for toll free and non-toll
free telephone numbers, could be modified, including by establishing
registration and compliance obligations,'' and to ``take sufficient
steps to know the identity of the customers of such providers [of voice
services], to help reduce access to numbers by potential perpetrators
of violations of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227(b)).''
The Commission commenced the required proceeding pursuant to the
TRACED Act in March 2020 and expanded on those inquiries in the VoIP
Direct Access Further Notice. Section 6(a)(2) of the TRACED Act states
that ``[i]f the Commission determines under paragraph (1) that
modifying the policies described in that paragraph could help achieve
the goal described in that paragraph, the Commission shall prescribe
regulations to implement those policy modifications.'' We conclude that
section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, in directing us to prescribe
regulations implementing policy changes to reduce access to numbers by
potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls, provides an independent
basis to adopt certain of the rule changes we are making to the direct
access process with respect to fighting unlawful robocalls.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the Numbering
Policies for Modern Communications, et al., Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second VoIP Direct Access Further Notice) released
in September 2023. The Commission sought written
[[Page 7157]]
public comment on the proposals in the Second VoIP Direct Access
Further Notice, including comment on the IFRA. No comments were filed
addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
conforms to the RFA and it (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
The Third Report and Order takes important steps aimed at stemming
the tide of illegal robocalls perpetrated by interconnected Voice over
internet Protocol (VoIP) providers and protecting the nation's
numbering resources from abuse by foreign bad actors by strategically
updating the Commission's rules regarding how such providers obtain
nationwide authorization for direct access to our nation's limited
numbering resources.
The Third Report and Order requires existing interconnected VoIP
providers with numbering authorizations that predate the rule change
adopted in the Second Report and Order to make the updated robocall-
related, public safety and national security certifications and
information disclosures as adopted in the Second Report and Order.
Specifically, the Third Report and Order will amend 47 CFR
52.15(g)(3)(x), which outlines conditions applicable to all
interconnected VoIP providers with numbering authorizations to include
a new subsection that requires the updated certifications and
information disclosures. Similar in process to the new applications,
filers submitting the required updates will be required to respond to
requests for additional information regarding their updated filings.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules
on small entities.
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 the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of
Advocacy, and also 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.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
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 adopted rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act (SBA). 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. 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 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number
of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits
have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental
jurisdictions'' are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of
less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments
data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will apply to small
entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-
digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and
corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S.
Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each
identified industry, we conclude that the adopted rules will impact a
substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide
additional information regarding the number of potentially affected
entities in the identified industries below.
Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (footnotes
specify potentially affected Total small % Small
entities within a regulated NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms firms firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees............. 3,403 3,027 88.95
Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees............. 1,184 1,081 91.30
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers.. 517121 1,500 employees............. 955 847 88.69
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $44 million................. 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications.. 517810 $40 million................. 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7158]]
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
Form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable/Coax CLEC................................................. 67 62 92.54
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)..................... 3,729 3,576 95.90
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).............. 1,175 917 78.04
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)................................... 113 95 84.07
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).................................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
Local Resellers................................................. 222 217 97.75
Other Toll Carriers............................................. 74 71 95.95
Prepaid Card Providers.......................................... 47 47 100.00
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of adopted
rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes
of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type
of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or
record.
In the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopts new
certification and disclosure requirements for interconnected VoIP
providers that have obtain a direct access numbering authorization from
the Commission. Specifically, we require existing direct access
authorization holders whose authorizations predate the updated
requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order to file the updated
requirements within 30 days of the rules we adopt today becoming
effective. All existing authorization holders will be required to file
the updated robocall-related certifications; file ownership and control
disclosure information, reporting foreign ownership as outlined in the
rules; and file the updated certifications related to their ongoing
compliance with other important Commission rules designed to strengthen
public safety, prevent fraud, and enhance transparency for consumers.
By establishing this equal framework for all authorization holders, we
ensure that our ongoing actions targeting illegal robocalling and
spoofing, as well as safeguards for national security and public safety
have a greater impact. The Commission anticipates the approaches it has
taken to implement the requirements will have minimal or de minimis
cost implications because many of these obligations are required to
comply with existing Commission regulations.
After reviewing the record, we received no concerns about unique
burdens from small businesses that would be impacted by the new
certifications adopted in the Third Report and Order. As such, the
Commission does not have sufficient information on the record to
determine whether small entities will be required to hire professionals
to comply with its decisions or to quantify the cost of compliance for
small entities. Additional resources or personnel, however, should not
be required to file these requirements because interconnected VoIP
providers should already be familiar with how to make these
certifications and disclosures as they are required to comply with
existing Commission regulations.
Discussion of 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 Third Report and Order considered alternatives that may reduce
the impact of these rule changes on small entities. Some proposals were
not adopted because the requirements already exist under other parts of
the Commission's rules. New obligations regarding STIR/SHAKEN caller ID
authentication or robocall mitigation specifically for interconnected
VoIP providers were not adopted; instead applicants are required to
certify compliance with preexisting rule sections. This reduces
confusion and maintains accuracy should the Commission decide to revise
the robocall-related dockets.
While some commenters believe these new requirements are burdensome
and anticompetitive, as discussed above, the new certification
requirements in the Third Report and Order require providers to certify
that they are compliant with preexisting Commission rules, and are
therefore minimally burdensome. Our public safety and CALEA
documentation submission requirement formalizes existing Bureau
practice of requesting such information from existing direct access
numbering authorization holders. Our new ownership disclosure
requirement tracks requirements already imposed on providers in the
section 214 context. For these reasons, we believe that small and other
interconnected VoIP providers will not face significantly increased
compliance burdens when including these new certifications and
disclosures in their direct access authorization applications.
Report to Congress
The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order,
including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the
Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, including
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA and will publish a copy of the Third Report and
Order and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or summaries
thereof) in the Federal Register.
[[Page 7159]]
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201-
205, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), and section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act, Public Law 116-105, section 6(a)(1)-(2), 133 Stat. 3274,
3277 (2019), 47 U.S.C. 227b-1, the Third Report and Order and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking hereby is adopted and part 52 of
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 52, is amended as set forth in
Appendix A of the Third Report and Order. Pursuant to Executive Order
14215, 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 20, 2025), this regulatory action has been
determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR
68708 (Dec. 28, 1993). The Third Report and Order shall become
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The
changes to Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(x) adopted herein may contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to OMB review
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Wireline
Competition Bureau to announce the compliance date for those
requirements in a document published in the Federal Register after the
completion of OMB review and to cause Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(x) to be
revised accordingly.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order and Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for the Small
Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a copy of
this Third 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).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52
Communications common carriers, Interconnected VoIP providers,
Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52--NUMBERING
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 201-205, 207-209,
218, 225-227, 227b-1, 251-252, 271, 303, 332, unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.15 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (g)(3)(x)(C);
0
b. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(x)(D); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (g)(3)(x)(E) and (F).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.15 Central office code administration.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(x) * * *
(D) Provide accurate regulatory and numbering contact information
to each state commission when requesting numbers in that state; and
(E) File updated certifications and ownership and control
disclosures under paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), (K), (L),
and (N) of this section if the authorization obtained under this
section was granted before August 8, 2024.
(F) Paragraph (g)(3)(x)(E) of this section contains a new
information-collection requirement. Compliance with paragraph
(g)(3)(x)(E) will not be required until this paragraph (g)(3)(x)(F) is
removed or contains a compliance date.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-03066 Filed 2-13-26; 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 February 17, 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.