Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80617 

submissions shall be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and be flagged to the 

attention of the Group Leader, 

Measurement Policy Group. If assistance 

is needed with submitting large 

electronic files that exceed the file size 

limit for email attachments, and if the 

owner or operator does not have a file 

sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@

epa.gov to request a file transfer link. 

(v) If the owner or operator cannot 

transmit the file electronically, the 

owner or operator may send CBI 

information through the postal service 

to the following address: OAQPS 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, Attention Group 

Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The 

mailed CBI material should be double 

wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI 

markings should not show through the 

outer envelope. 

(vi) All CBI claims shall be asserted at 

the time of submission. Anything 

submitted using CEDRI cannot later be 

claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA 

section 114(c), emissions data is not 

entitled to confidential treatment, and 

the EPA is required to make emissions 

data available to the public. Thus, 

emissions data will not be protected as 

CBI and will be made publicly available. 

(vii) The owner or operator shall 

submit the same file submitted to the 

CBI office with the CBI omitted to the 

EPA through CEDRI via the EPA’s CDX 

as described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) 

of this section. 

(e) If the owner or operator is required 

to electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of EPA 

system outage for failure to timely 

comply with that reporting requirement. 

To assert a claim of EPA system outage, 

the owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (7) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator shall have 

been or will be precluded from 

accessing CEDRI and submitting a 

required report within the time 

prescribed due to an outage of either the 

EPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems. 

(2) The outage shall have occurred 

within the period of time beginning five 

business days prior to the date that the 

submission is due. 

(3) The outage may be planned or 

unplanned. 

(4) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(5) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator a written 

description identifying: 

(i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX 

or CEDRI was accessed and the system 

was unavailable; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to EPA system outage; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator propose to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(6) The decision to accept the claim 

of EPA system outage and allow an 

extension to the reporting deadline is 

solely within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(7) In any circumstance, the report 

shall be submitted electronically as soon 

as possible after the outage is resolved. 

(f) If the owner or operator is required 

to electronically submit a report through 

CEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, the owner or 

operator may assert a claim of force 

majeure for failure to timely comply 

with that reporting requirement. To 

assert a claim of force majeure, the 

owner or operator shall meet the 

requirements outlined in paragraphs 

(f)(1) through (5) of this section. 

(1) The owner or operator may submit 

a claim if a force majeure event is about 

to occur, occurs, or has occurred or 

there are lingering effects from such an 

event within the period of time 

beginning five business days prior to the 

date the submission is due. For the 

purposes of this section, a force majeure 

event is defined as an event that will be 

or has been caused by circumstances 

beyond the control of the affected 

facility, its contractors, or any entity 

controlled by the affected facility that 

prevents the owner or operator from 

complying with the requirement to 

submit a report electronically within the 

time period prescribed. Examples of 

such events are acts of nature (e.g., 

hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), acts 

of war or terrorism, or equipment failure 

or safety hazard beyond the control of 

the affected facility (e.g., large scale 

power outage). 

(2) The owner or operator shall 

submit notification to the Administrator 

in writing as soon as possible following 

the date the owner or operator first 

knew, or through due diligence should 

have known, that the event may cause 

or has caused a delay in reporting. 

(3) The owner or operator shall 

provide to the Administrator: 

(i) A written description of the force 

majeure event; 

(ii) A rationale for attributing the 

delay in reporting beyond the regulatory 

deadline to the force majeure event; 

(iii) A description of measures taken 

or to be taken to minimize the delay in 

reporting; and 

(iv) The date by which the owner or 

operator proposes to report, or if the 

owner or operator has already met the 

reporting requirement at the time of the 

notification, the date the owner or 

operator reported. 

(4) The decision to accept the claim 

of force majeure and allow an extension 

to the reporting deadline is solely 

within the discretion of the 

Administrator. 

(5) In any circumstance, the reporting 

shall occur as soon as possible after the 

force majeure event occurs. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25275 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 52 

[WC Docket Nos. 13–97, 07–243, 20–67; IB 

Docket No. 16–155; FCC 23–75; FR ID 

183540] 

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 

safeguard U.S. numbering resources and 

consumers, protect national security 

interests, promote public safety, and 

reduce opportunities for regulatory 

arbitrage. 

DATES: Effective December 20, 2023, 

except for the amendments to 47 CFR 

52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), (K), (L), 

and (N) and (g)(3)(x)(A) (amendatory 

instruction 3), which are delayed 

indefinitely. The amendments to 47 CFR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80618 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), (K), (L), 

and (N) and (g)(3)(x)(A) will become 

effective following publication of a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, Mason 

Shefa, at (202) 418–2494, mason.shefa@

fcc.gov. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an 

email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole 

Ongele, Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order (Second Report and 

Order) in WC Docket Nos. 13–97, 07– 

243, 20–67, and IB Docket No. 16–155, 

FCC 23–75, adopted on September 21, 

2023, and released on September 22, 

2023. The document is available for 

download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-23-75A1.pdf. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (e.g., Braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format, etc.), send an email to FCC504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice) or (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document may contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. This document will be 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 

general public, and other Federal 

agencies will be invited to comment on 

the new or modified information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission sent a copy of the 

Second Report and Order to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Amendatory Instructions 

Amendatory instructions are the 

standard terms that the Office of the 

Federal Register uses to give specific 

instructions on how to change the CFR. 

Due to the extensive number of 

technical and conforming amendments 

to 47 CFR 52.15(g)(3), including 

redesignations of existing paragraphs 

within the current rule, that will 

become effective 30 days following 

publication of this document, the 

Commission is utilizing the Office of the 

Federal Register’s amendatory 

instruction ‘‘revise and republish’’ to 

codify the revisions to that paragraph. 

Use of this combined instruction allows 

the Commission to republish 47 CFR 

52.15(g)(3) 30 days following 

publication of this document instead of 

using piecemeal amendments to revise 

the CFR. All other amendments, 

including subsequent amendments to 47 

CFR 52.15(g)(3) that are delayed 

indefinitely, are made pursuant to 

specific amendatory instructions. 

Synopsis 

1. We adopt the Second Report and 

Order to further stem the tide of illegal 

robocalls perpetrated by interconnected 

VoIP providers, to protect the Nation’s 

numbering resources from abuse by 

foreign bad actors, and to advance other 

important public policy objectives tied 

to the use of our Nation’s limited 

numbering resources. To that end, we 

strategically update the Commission’s 

direct access to numbering process. 

First, we require applicants seeking 

direct access to numbering resources to 

make robocall-related certifications to 

help ensure compliance with our rules 

targeting illegal robocalls. Second, we 

require applicants to disclose and keep 

current information about their 

ownership, including foreign 

ownership, to mitigate the risk of 

providing bad actors abroad with access 

to our numbering resources. Third, we 

require applicants to certify to their 

compliance with other Commission 

rules applicable to interconnected VoIP 

providers to bolster awareness and 

compliance with such rules. Fourth, we 

require applicants to comply with state 

laws and registration requirements that 

are applicable to businesses in each 

state in which numbers are requested. 

Fifth, we require applicants to include 

a signed declaration that their 

applications are true and accurate. 

Sixth, and finally, we codify the 

Wireline Competition Bureau’s (Bureau) 

application review, application 

rejection, and authorization revocation 

processes. 

2. Section 52.15(g)(2) of the 

Commission’s rules governs the 

application process for numbering 

resources. It limits access to telephone 

numbers to entities that demonstrate 

they are authorized to provide service in 

the area for which they are requesting 

numbers. The North American 

Numbering Plan (NANP) is the basic 

numbering scheme for 

telecommunications networks located in 

the United States and its territories, 

Canada, and parts of the Caribbean. 

NANP telephone numbers are ten-digit 

numbers consisting of a three-digit area 

code, followed by a three-digit central 

office code, followed by a four-digit line 

number. The Commission has 

interpreted § 52.15(g)(2) to require 

evidence of either a state certificate of 

public convenience and necessity 

(CPCN) or a Commission license or 

authorization. Because only 

telecommunications carriers were able 

to provide this proof of authorization, in 

2015, the Commission revised its 

numbering rules and adopted a process 

by which interconnected VoIP providers 

could satisfy this authorization 

requirement and thus obtain numbers 

directly from the Numbering 

Administrator. In the Second Report 

and Order, we refer to both the North 

American Numbering Plan 

Administrator and the Pooling 

Administrator as the Numbering 

Administrator. Although these functions 

are described separately in our rules, 

see, e.g., 47 CFR 52.13, 52.20, they are 

currently combined under a single 

Commission contract. The Commission 

found that permitting interconnected 

VoIP providers to obtain telephone 

numbers directly from the Numbering 

Administrator would improve 

responsiveness in the number porting 

process and improve the visibility and 

accuracy of number utilization, which 

would in turn enable the Commission to 

more effectively protect our Nation’s 

limited numbering resources. Moreover, 

the Commission found that this change 

to its authorization process would 

enhance its ability to enforce rules 

governing interconnected VoIP 

providers, and help stakeholders and 

the Commission identify the source of 

routing problems and take corrective 

actions. 

3. The Commission’s rules now 

require interconnected VoIP providers 

obtaining numbering resources to 

comply with both the requirements 

applicable to telecommunications 

carriers seeking to obtain numbering 

resources and certain interconnected 

VoIP-specific requirements for applying 

for, and maintaining, a Commission 

authorization for direct access to 

numbering resources. Section 52.15(g) 

currently requires an interconnected 

VoIP applicant for direct access to 

numbering resources to: provide its 

company name, headquarters address, 

Operating Company Number (OCN), 

parent company’s OCN(s), and the 

primary type of business in which the 

numbering resources will be used; 

provide contact information for 

personnel qualified to address issues 

relating to regulatory requirements, 

numbering, compliance, 911, and law 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80619 

enforcement; comply with applicable 

Commission rules related to numbering, 

including, among others, numbering 

utilization and optimization 

requirements (in particular, filing 

Numbering Resource Utilization and 

Forecast (NRUF) Reports); comply with 

guidelines and procedures adopted 

pursuant to numbering authority 

delegated to the states; and comply with 

industry guidelines and practices 

applicable to telecommunications 

carriers with regard to numbering; file 

requests for numbers with the relevant 

state commission(s) at least 30 days 

before requesting numbers from the 

Numbering Administrator; provide 

proof it is or will be capable of 

providing service within sixty (60) days 

of the numbering resources activation 

date in accordance with 47 CFR 

52.15(g)(2), i.e., ‘‘facilities readiness’’; 

certify that it complies with its 

Universal Service Fund contribution 

obligations, its Telecommunications 

Relay Service contribution obligations, 

its NANP and local number portability 

administration contribution obligations, 

its obligations to pay regulatory fees, 

and its 911 obligations; certify that it 

has the requisite technical, managerial, 

and financial capacity to provide 

service; include the name of its key 

management and technical personnel, 

such as the Chief Operating Officer and 

the Chief Technology Officer, or 

equivalent; and state that none of the 

identified personnel are being or have 

been investigated by the Commission or 

any law enforcement or regulatory 

agency for failure to comply with any 

law, rule, or order; and certify that no 

party to the application is subject to a 

denial of Federal benefits pursuant to 

section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 

of 1988. 

4. The Commission directed and 

delegated authority to the Bureau to 

‘‘implement and maintain the 

authorization process.’’ Bureau staff 

review applications for conformance 

with procedural rules, and if the rule 

requirements are satisfied, release an 

‘‘Accepted-for-Filing Public Notice’’ 

seeking comment on the application. 

Applications are deemed granted by the 

Commission on the 31st day after the 

release of the public notice, unless the 

Bureau notifies the applicant that the 

grant will not be automatically effective. 

The Bureau may halt the auto-grant 

process if (1) an applicant fails to 

respond promptly to Commission 

inquiries, (2) an application is 

associated with a non-routine request 

for waiver of the Commission’s rules, (3) 

timely filed comments on the 

application raise public interest 

concerns that require further 

Commission review, or (4) the Bureau 

determines that the request requires 

further analysis to determine whether 

the application serves the public 

interest. 

5. Once an interconnected VoIP 

provider has Commission authorization 

to obtain numbering resources, it may 

request numbers directly from the 

Numbering Administrator. 

Interconnected VoIP providers that 

apply for and receive Commission 

authorization for direct access to 

numbering resources ‘‘are subject to, 

and acknowledge, Commission 

enforcement authority.’’ Failure to 

comply with the obligations set out by 

the Commission ‘‘could result in 

revocation of the Commission’s 

authorization, the inability to obtain 

additional numbers pending that 

revocation, reclamation of unassigned 

numbers already obtained directly from 

the Numbering Administrators, or 

enforcement action.’’ The Commission 

delegated authority to both the Bureau 

and the Enforcement Bureau to order 

the revocation of authorization and to 

direct the Numbering Administrator to 

reclaim any of the service provider’s 

unassigned numbers. 

6. Based on lessons learned from 

reviewing scores of direct access 

applications since the 2015 VoIP Direct 

Access Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 

2015), the Commission began to 

consider ways to update the 

interconnected VoIP provider 

application requirements to add 

important information that is useful or 

necessary to the Bureau’s public interest 

review. To date, the Bureau has 

requested such information from 

applicants on a case-by-case basis where 

appropriate. For example, certain 

applications with significant foreign 

ownership that raise potential national 

security and/or law enforcement issues 

have been filed. Additionally, direct 

access applications have been 

challenged by commenters raising 

concerns about intercarrier 

compensation and call routing or call 

blocking practices. 

7. In August 2021, the Commission 

adopted a Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM), 86 FR 51081, 

seeking comment on how to improve 

the interconnected VoIP direct access 

application process to address the 

identified gaps in the direct access 

application process, the continued 

scourge of illegal robocalls, national 

security, and number resource exhaust. 

We received comments from a wide 

range of stakeholders, including state 

public utility commissions, 

interconnected VoIP providers, industry 

standards groups and trade associations, 

and consumer advocates. 

Discussion 

8. The application process for 

interconnected VoIP providers’ direct 

access to numbering is the first line of 

defense in mitigating the risk of 

providing scarce numbering resources to 

bad actors. It is thus critically important 

that the rules governing this process 

prevent, to the greatest extent possible, 

interconnected VoIP providers that 

engage in unlawful robocalling or 

spoofing, or otherwise threaten the 

national security and law enforcement 

interests of the United States, from 

accessing or retaining our Nation’s 

numbering resources. While our direct 

access rules currently contemplate that 

the Bureau may request supplemental 

information as necessary to conduct a 

thorough public interest review, the rule 

changes we adopt in this document 

make certain previously supplemental 

showings a mandatory prerequisite 

before the Bureau accepts new 

applications for filing and grants such 

applications in the public interest. The 

rules we adopt in this document strike 

an appropriate balance between 

establishing necessary checks on 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

applicants and authorization holders 

and fostering an efficient direct access 

process that has, in part, facilitated the 

ongoing technological transition to 

advanced IP communications networks. 

Ensuring That Authorization Approvals 

Serve the Public Interest 

9. First, we tighten our application 

requirements to ensure that the Bureau 

receives sufficient detail from 

interconnected VoIP applicants to make 

informed, public-interest-driven 

decisions about their direct access 

applications and thereby protect the 

public from bad actors. These new 

requirements will also increase our 

enforcement capabilities should we find 

that providers are skirting our rules. 

Upon the effective date of these rules, 

we require explicit acknowledgment of 

compliance with all robocall 

regulations; implement disclosure and 

update requirements regarding 

ownership and control; require 

certification of compliance with other 

applicable Commission regulations and 

certain state law; and add a declaration 

requirement to hold applicants 

accountable for the truthfulness and 

accuracy of their direct access 

applications. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80620 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Certifying Compliance With RobocallRelated Rules 

10. We adopt our proposal to require 

a direct access applicant to certify that 

it will use numbering resources lawfully 

and will not encourage, assist, or 

facilitate illegal robocalls, illegal 

spoofing, or fraud. Protecting Americans 

from the harmful effects of unwanted 

and illegal robocalls remains the 

Commission’s top consumer protection 

priority. 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 nonquantifiable 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 unwanted 

calls than about anything else— 

approximately 119,000 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. 

11. To help curb illegal robocalls and 

enhance the Bureau staff’s ability to 

protect the public interest from such 

calls, the VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 

FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), proposed 

requiring applicants to certify in their 

direct access applications to numerous 

statements regarding illegal robocalls 

and the Robocall Mitigation Database 

and to disclose whether they are subject 

to a robocall-related action, 

investigation, or inquiry from various 

enforcement entities. We proposed 

requiring applicants for direct access to 

certify that they: (1) will use numbering 

resources lawfully; (2) will not 

encourage nor assist and facilitate illegal 

robocalls, illegal spoofing, or fraud; (3) 

will take reasonable steps to cease 

origination, termination, and/or 

transmission of illegal robocalls once 

discovered; (4) will cooperate with the 

Commission, Federal, and state law 

enforcement and regulatory agencies 

with relevant jurisdiction, and the 

industry-led registered consortium, 

regarding efforts to mitigate illegal or 

harmful robocalling or spoofing and 

tracebacks; (5) have filed in the Robocall 

Mitigation Database; (6) have either (A) 

fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN 

caller ID authentication protocols and 

framework or (B) have implemented 

either STIR/SHAKEN caller ID 

authentication or a robocall mitigation 

program for all calls for which it acts as 

a voice service provider, and if the 

latter, have described in the Database 

the detailed steps they are taking 

regarding number use that can 

reasonably be expected to reduce the 

origination and transmission of illegal 

robocalls. We also proposed requiring 

direct access applicants or authorization 

holders to inform the Commission if 

they are subject to a Commission, law 

enforcement, or regulatory action, 

investigation, or inquiry due to their 

robocall mitigation plan being deemed 

insufficient or problematic, or due to 

suspected unlawful robocalling or 

spoofing, and to acknowledge this 

requirement in their applications. We 

received substantial opposition from a 

wide range of commenters in response 

to these proposals. Many commenters 

argued that our proposed approach 

would risk creating redundancies and 

cause confusion because interconnected 

VoIP providers are already subject to the 

Commission’s comprehensive 

framework to combat illegal robocalls. 

Some commenters also argued that our 

proposals would not effectively reduce 

the origination of illegal robocalls, or 

would impact interconnected VoIP 

providers’ competitiveness with other 

types of providers by imposing on them 

unique burdens. Upon consideration of 

the record, we adopt a more 

straightforward approach that avoids 

these concerns and instead crossreferences the relevant Commission 

rules targeting illegal robocalls in our 

new certifications. 

12. Robocall-related certifications. We 

revise § 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission’s 

rules to require an interconnected VoIP 

provider seeking direct access to 

numbering resources to certify that: the 

applicant 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, and 64.6300 through 

64.6308 and 16 CFR 310.3(b) [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. Some commenters 

propose additional changes to the 

robocalling rules that are not necessarily 

tied to direct access to numbers or 

limited to interconnected VoIP 

providers. We decline to adopt or 

address these proposals, as they are 

beyond the scope of this proceeding]; 

the applicant 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 

through 64.6305 [Accordingly, should 

the Commission deem the applicant’s 

filing insufficient and remove it from 

the Robocall Mitigation Database, the 

applicant may not validly certify to this 

statement. As noted above, we proposed 

requiring interconnected VoIP providers 

to certify that they will cooperate with 

various governmental agencies and the 

industry-led registered consortium 

regarding efforts to mitigate illegal or 

harmful robocalling or spoofing and 

tracebacks. In our recent Caller ID 

Authentication Sixth Report and Order, 

88 FR 29035 (May 5, 2023), we 

expanded the scope of a similar 

Robocall Mitigation Database 

certification requirement to cover all 

providers. We thus decline to adopt our 

proposal here to avoid imposing 

redundant requirements]; and neither 

the applicant 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. Our rules already 

require interconnected VoIP direct 

access applicants to certify that none of 

the key personnel identified in their 

applications are or have been subject to 

a Commission, law enforcement, or 

regulatory agency investigation for 

failure to comply with any law, rule, or 

order. By adding the language regarding 

the Commission’s rules applicable to 

unlawful robocalls or unlawful spoofing 

to the end of the provision, we do not 

narrow the broader scope of the 

certification, as VON suggests, but 

rather place additional emphasis on the 

need for applicants to disclose 

robocalling compliance issues to the 

Commission. Additionally, we note that 

this certification is consistent with the 

reporting requirements recently adopted 

by the Commission for all providers to 

certify as to whether they have been the 

subject of a formal Commission, law 

enforcement, or regulatory agency 

action or investigation with 

accompanying findings of actual or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80621 

suspected wrongdoing due to the filing 

entity transmitting, encouraging, 

assisting, or otherwise facilitating illegal 

robocalls or spoofing. We decline at this 

time to adopt our proposal to expand 

the sphere of proceedings (i.e., to 

include ‘‘actions’’ and ‘‘inquiries’’ in 

addition to investigations) covered by 

this certification, as we agree with 

RingCentral that the proposal was 

vaguely worded and therefore did not 

‘‘provide[ ] sufficient notice to enable 

providers to comply.’’ Additionally, we 

emphasize that being subject to an 

investigation would not necessarily 

disqualify an applicant from receiving 

direct access authority. In the event an 

applicant is not able to certify that it is 

not subject to a Commission, law 

enforcement, or regulatory agency 

investigation, an applicant can explain 

in its application why the investigation 

should not disqualify the applicant from 

receiving direct access authorization. 

For example, an applicant could 

provide information rebutting a warning 

letter (e.g., a cease-and-desist letter) of 

suspected illegal robocalling received 

from the Commission or Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) and/or a description 

of the steps the applicant has taken to 

respond to such a letter. 

13. The additional certifications we 

adopt in this document strike a balance 

between acknowledging interconnected 

VoIP providers’ disproportionate role in 

the facilitation of illegal robocalls, and 

ensuring that our approach is minimally 

burdensome and competitively neutral. 

This approach accords with our recent 

decision in the Caller ID Authentication 

Sixth Report and Order, 88 FR 29035 

(May 5, 2023), not to adopt heightened 

robocall mitigation standards for 

interconnected VoIP providers. 

Consistent with the record here, we do 

not adopt new obligations regarding 

STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication 

or robocall mitigation specifically for 

interconnected VoIP providers, but 

instead merely require those providers 

to certify that they will comply, or have 

complied, with certain preexisting 

requirements. By requiring applicants to 

certify compliance with preexisting rule 

sections, we ensure that our approach 

does not cause confusion, and remains 

accurate should we decide to revise the 

robocall-related obligations applicable 

to voice service providers in the Call 

Authentication Trust Anchor or other 

robocall-related dockets. These 

certifications are not redundant and 

serve an important proactive 

educational function—alerting 

interconnected VoIP providers at the 

outset of the direct access application 

process of important obligations, 

thereby helping to ensure robust 

compliance and foster a more trustful 

numbering ecosystem. As explained 

below, the certifications carry the 

weight of the Commission’s requirement 

that an officer or responsible official of 

the company attests under penalty of 

perjury, pursuant to § 1.16 of the 

Commission’s rules, that all statements 

in the application are true and accurate. 

These certifications will thus serve the 

public interest by further deterring 

direct access applicants from engaging 

in unlawful robocalling or spoofing, and 

by giving the Commission another 

enforcement mechanism to use against 

bad actors. Our requirement that 

applicants certify that they are not 

subject to an investigation, including a 

robocall-related investigation, paired 

with our preexisting rule that 

authorization holders must maintain the 

accuracy of their certifications, will 

keep us informed of such investigations 

as they arise. The Commission 

publishes an up-to-date list of robocallrelated cease-and-desist letters that it 

has sent to voice service providers. Due 

to the persistence of robocalls and 

associated complaints nationwide, we 

unsurprisingly received broad support 

for adding robocall-specific 

certifications to direct access 

applications from governmental entities. 

RingCentral additionally supports our 

approach of strengthening our 

enforcement of already existing 

requirements. 

14. Some commenters contend that 

these new certifications could 

incentivize interconnected VoIP 

providers to obtain numbers from the 

secondary market, rather than by 

applying for direct access. This, they 

posit, would be a negative outcome 

because direct access to numbers 

facilitates traceback requests and gives 

regulators better visibility into number 

utilization. While we agree with 

commenters regarding the benefits of 

direct access, we disagree that our new 

certifications will push interconnected 

VoIP providers into the secondary 

market. The additional certifications we 

adopt in this document are minimally 

burdensome as they do not add any new 

substantive obligations, and are only 

incremental to the existing certifications 

required by the Commission’s rules. We 

are therefore confident that the 

incremental cost of filing such 

certifications will not materially impact 

an interconnected VoIP provider’s 

decision regarding numbering resource 

acquisition. We note the other issues 

raised by TelSwitch are outside the 

scope of this proceeding. 

15. Notification of investigations postgrant. In the VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 

86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), we 

proposed requiring direct access 

authorization holders to inform the 

Commission if the authorization holder 

is subject—either at the time of its 

application or after its filing or its 

grant—to a Commission, law 

enforcement, or regulatory agency 

action, investigation, or inquiry due to 

its robocall mitigation plan being 

deemed insufficient or problematic, or 

due to suspected unlawful robocalling 

or spoofing. We decline to adopt our 

proposal at this time. Because we adopt 

a new certification in this regard (as 

explained above), and because the 

Commission’s rules already contain a 

requirement that an authorization 

holder ‘‘[m]aintain the accuracy of all 

. . . certifications in its application,’’ 

and ‘‘file a correction with the 

Commission . . . within thirty (30) 

days’’ of any changes, adopting this 

proposal is unnecessary. By taking this 

approach, we address RingCentral’s 

concern regarding adding a potentially 

confusing additional layer of reporting 

requirements beyond what is already 

required by the current rule. We are 

satisfied that our current requirement to 

keep all certifications up-to-date will 

capture our new robocall-related 

certifications, and will keep us apprised 

of any new investigations involving 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

authorization holders. 

Enhanced Disclosure and Review of 

Ownership and Control of Applicants 

16. We adopt rules to require the 

disclosure and review of foreign 

ownership and control of 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

applicants. The Commission has 

recognized that ‘‘[i]llegal robocalling 

often originates from sources outside the 

United States,’’ and ‘‘[t]he Commission 

and Congress have long acknowledged 

that illegal robocalls that originate 

abroad are a significant part of the 

robocall problem.’’ Indeed, in 2020, the 

North American Numbering Council 

(NANC), the Commission’s advisory 

committee of outside experts on 

telephone numbering matters, stated 

that ‘‘it is a long-standing problem that 

international gateway traffic is a 

significant source of fraudulent traffic.’’ 

The Commission accordingly strives to 

stay abreast of foreign companies using 

U.S. telephone numbers. For example, it 

has stressed that ‘‘[e]nsuring that foreign 

voice service providers using U.S. 

telephone numbers comply with the 

certification requirements prior to being 

listed in the database is especially 

important in light of the prevalence of 

foreign-originated illegal robocalls 

aimed at U.S. consumers and the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80622 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

difficulty in eliminating such calls.’’ 

Foreign ownership of providers serving 

our Nation’s consumers also is a matter 

of concern for the Commission 

generally, as it may pose national 

security and/or law enforcement risks to 

the United States. VoIP providers 

require particular scrutiny in the 

robocall area as well, given that ‘‘[t]he 

rising tide of robocalls and the 

emergence of VoIP go hand in hand.’’ In 

fact, ‘‘[t]oday, widely available VoIP 

software can allow bad actors with 

malicious intent to make spoofed calls 

with minimal technical experience and 

cost.’’ As a result, ‘‘[a]llowing [VoIP 

providers with foreign ownership or 

control] direct access to numbers and 

critical numbering databases raises a 

number of potential risks, including the 

impact to number conservation 

requirements; questions related to 

jurisdiction, oversight, and enforcement 

of numbering rules; consideration of 

assessment of taxes and fees upon 

foreign-owned entities; and potential 

national security and law enforcement 

risks with access to U.S. 

telecommunications network 

operations.’’ These factors make it 

important for the Commission to know 

about foreign ownership of 

interconnected VoIP providers seeking 

direct access to our Nation’s finite 

numbering resources, especially because 

a number of providers with substantial 

foreign ownership have applied to 

obtain direct access to numbering 

resources since the 2015 VoIP Direct 

Access Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 

2015). 

17. The current rules on direct access 

applications, however, do not require 

interconnected VoIP providers to 

disclose any information about their 

ownership or affiliation, nor do they 

specify a process to evaluate 

applications with substantial foreign 

ownership. The VoIP Direct Access 

FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), 

therefore proposed requirements aimed 

at ascertaining the foreign ownership 

and control of interconnected VoIP 

applicants and tentatively concluded 

that applicants should disclose any 10% 

or greater ‘‘equity and/or voting interest, 

or a controlling interest.’’ It also 

proposed requiring such applicants to 

identify any interlocking directorates 

with a foreign carrier, as well as any 

affiliation with a foreign carrier. As 

discussed below, we now adopt 

ownership disclosure requirements for 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

applicants, and relatedly conclude that 

applications from such providers will be 

placed on a ‘‘non-streamlined’’ 

processing track if the applicant has a 

foreign owner whose interest exceeds 

the reporting threshold set forth in 

§ 63.18(h) of the Commission’s rules, 

which we incorporate for purposes of 

ownership reporting here. 

18. Ownership disclosure 

requirements. We adopt a rule to require 

interconnected VoIP applicants for a 

Commission direct access authorization 

to provide all of the information, 

disclosures, and certifications required 

by § 63.18(h) and (i) of the 

Commission’s rules. If the applicant 

does not have information required to 

be provided under § 63.18(h) and (i), the 

application must include a statement to 

that effect. This approach ensures the 

requirements for interconnected VoIP 

direct access applicants match the 

requirements for international section 

214 applications, as well as applications 

for submarine cable landing licenses 

(which likewise cross-reference 

§ 63.18(h)). It also ensures the 

requirements for interconnected VoIP 

direct access applicants will remain 

consistent with the requirements for 

international section 214 applicants 

regardless of any modifications to 

§ 63.18(h) or (i). For example, the 

Commission adopted changes to 

§ 63.18(h) in 2020. The amendments to 

§ 63.18(h), however, are not yet 

effective. The Commission also has a 

pending rulemaking proceeding seeking 

comment, among other things, on 

whether to adopt a new ownership 

reporting threshold that would require 

disclosure of certain 5% percent or 

greater direct and indirect equity and/or 

voting interests with respect to 

applications for international section 

214 authority and modification, 

assignment, transfer of control, and 

renewal of international section 214 

authority, and on whether to apply the 

5% reporting threshold to encompass all 

equity and voting interests, regardless of 

whether the interest holder is a 

domestic or foreign individual or entity. 

In that proceeding, the Commission 

stated, ‘‘[t]he current 10% reporting 

threshold may not capture all foreign 

interests that may present national 

security, law enforcement, foreign 

policy, and/or trade policy concerns.’’ If 

the Commission amends § 63.18(h) by 

adopting a 5% reporting threshold, we 

direct the Bureau to seek comment on 

whether applicants for a direct access 

authorization should disclose 

information, including the name, 

address, citizenship, and principal 

business, of any individual or entity that 

directly or indirectly owns 5% percent 

or greater equity and/or voting interests, 

or a controlling interest, of the 

applicant. Based upon the Bureau’s 

review of the comments, we further 

delegate to the Bureau the authority to 

address any such final threshold 

requirement in a public notice. We find 

that adopting a reporting threshold 

consistent with that used in other 

Commission application processing 

regimes promotes certainty and 

transparency. This approach also 

ensures there is no undue burden on 

direct access applicants, since many 

companies already provide the same or 

similar information to the Commission 

in other contexts. 

19. Adopting the same standards that 

will be used for international section 

214 applications, [Note that applicants 

seeking assignment or transfer of control 

of an international section 214 

authorization are also subject to the 

ownership-disclosure requirement in 

§ 63.18(h) pursuant to § 63.24.] in 

particular, is appropriate given our 

focus on national security and law 

enforcement concerns and reducing 

risks of illegal robocalling facilitated by 

potential bad actors abroad. Requiring 

ownership information, from a U.S.- or 

foreign-owned applicant, will assist 

Bureau staff in their existing practice of 

identifying applications that require 

further review to determine whether the 

direct access applicant’s ownership, 

control, or affiliation raises national 

security and/or law enforcement 

concerns. Indeed, ‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that 

the Commission needs accurate 

information in order to carry out its 

work, and this is especially true with 

regard to compliance with foreign 

ownership disclosures. In several recent 

cases the Commission has found that 

foreign ownership of 

telecommunications companies 

providing services in the United States 

may pose a risk to national security, law 

enforcement interests, or the safety of 

U.S. persons.’’ As noted above, several 

providers with substantial foreign 

ownership have applied to obtain direct 

access to numbering resources since 

adoption of the 2015 VoIP Direct Access 

Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), 

making the initial review process 

especially important to address the risk 

of providing access to our numbering 

resources to potential bad actors abroad. 

This requirement also will cause 

applicants to conduct robust due 

diligence, thus increasing the reliability 

of their information. 

20. The record largely supports 

instituting some form of ownership 

disclosure for direct access applicants. 

We decline to adopt a higher threshold 

because, as we recognized in the 

international section 214 context, 

‘‘although a 10-percent threshold is 

somewhat more burdensome [than a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80623 

higher threshold], that increased burden 

does not outweigh the potential value to 

the Commission of being able to review 

the additional information about the 

applicant’s ownership. Leaving the 

threshold at 10% or greater will help us 

determine whether a particular 

application raises issues of national 

security, foreign policy, or law 

enforcement risks.’’ VON and Microsoft, 

however, argue that a foreign ownership 

reporting requirement ‘‘will add 

unnecessary time and expense to the 

review process without any obvious 

purpose or anticipated reduction in 

illegal robocalls.’’ While we recognize 

that an ownership disclosure 

requirement constitutes an additional 

step in the direct access application 

process for interconnected VoIP 

providers, we conclude that the public 

interest in receiving this information 

outweighs any incremental cost on 

applicants. Interconnected VoIP 

providers that seek access to telephone 

numbers on a permanent basis acquire 

both the rights and obligations 

associated with using that access in the 

public interest, and we must ensure that 

access does not result in illegal practices 

that harm consumers. As noted above, 

the ownership disclosures we adopt are 

like those required in several other 

Commission application processes, so 

requiring the same kind of disclosure 

here is not unduly onerous. Twilio 

argues that applicants for growth 

numbering resources should not have to 

disclose ownership information in those 

applications because they would 

already have been granted access to 

numbers. We are not revising the rules 

on applications for growth numbering 

resources in 47 CFR 52.15(g)(4). We do, 

however, address below the duty to 

update ownership disclosures when the 

relevant information changes. Moreover, 

an applicant that is a privately held 

entity should know its investors and 

maintain records of their significant 

direct or indirect equity and/or voting 

interest holders in the ordinary course 

of business. An applicant that is a 

publicly held company is also required 

to identify its interest holders in 

requisite filings with the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC). As in 

other contexts requiring the same kind 

of ownership disclosure, the relatively 

minor burden of disclosing ownership 

information in a direct access 

application is outweighed by the public 

interest benefit of the Commission 

having the information when the 

application is filed, in time to address 

potential issues raised by foreign 

ownership before granting an applicant 

rights or privileges. 

21. Non-streamlined pleading cycle 

for direct access applicants with 

reportable foreign ownership. As 

proposed in the VoIP Direct Access 

FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), 

we amend our rules to state that the 

Bureau will remove applications from 

streamlined processing whenever the 

applicant has reportable foreign 

ownership, meaning ownership or 

control by a foreign entity that meets or 

exceeds the threshold for disclosure 

under § 63.18(h) of the Commission’s 

rules, as now incorporated in 

§ 52.15(g)(3). The rule formalizes the 

current practice of taking applications 

with substantial foreign ownership off 

the streamlined processing cycle. 

22. Allowing sufficient time for 

review of applications with reportable 

foreign ownership will help the Bureau 

identify and assess potential national 

security and law enforcement risks 

raised by such applications, and provide 

transparency to applicants regarding the 

timeframe for processing their 

applications. Twilio supported this 

proposal, and no commenter opposed it. 

23. Referral of applications with 

reportable foreign ownership to 

Executive Branch agencies. We decline 

to automatically refer to the Executive 

Branch agencies interconnected VoIP 

providers’ direct access applications 

that have reportable foreign ownership 

or control. There was a lack of strong 

record support for automatic referrals. 

Moreover, given the limited number of 

referrals to date, it is more prudent and 

efficient to continue the current practice 

under § 1.40001(a) of the rules, where 

the Commission, in its discretion, makes 

case-by-case referrals of direct access 

applications if it finds that ‘‘the specific 

circumstances of an application require 

the input of the Executive Branch as 

part of [the Commission’s] public 

interest determination of whether an 

application raises national security, law 

enforcement, foreign policy, and/or 

trade policy concerns.’’ 

24. Development of standard 

questions. We also decline to develop a 

list of ‘‘Standard Questions’’ for 

interconnected VoIP applicants with 

reportable foreign ownership or control. 

While the Commission has adopted ‘‘a 

standardized set of national security and 

law enforcement questions (Standard 

Questions) that certain applicants and 

petitioners . . . with reportable foreign 

ownership will be required to answer as 

part of the Executive Branch review 

process,’’ there was no strong record 

support for developing such questions 

for all interconnected VoIP direct access 

applicants with reportable foreign 

ownership. Given the lack of a 

developed record and our decision not 

to automatically refer applications to the 

Executive Branch agencies when an 

interconnected VoIP provider has 

reportable foreign ownership, we find it 

appropriate to rely on the current 

practice, under which Commission staff 

and the Executive Branch agencies can 

request additional information from 

applicants on a case-by-case basis. 

25. Duty to update ownership 

information. To ensure ownership 

information remains up to date, we 

revise § 52.15(g)(3) to require 

interconnected VoIP providers that 

obtain direct access authorization under 

the revised rules to submit an update to 

the Commission and each applicable 

state (i.e., each state where the provider 

has acquired or applied to receive 

numbers from the state at the time of the 

ownership change) within 30 days of 

any change to the reportable ownership 

information disclosed in their direct 

access applications, or if a provider that 

previously did not have reportable 

ownership information comes to have 

reportable foreign ownership 

information. For example, if a provider 

had no reportable ownership 

information at the time of its application 

but a person or entity later came to 

possess more than 10% of the equity in 

the provider, the provider would have 

to report the change. If a provider had 

reportable ownership information at the 

time of its application but the 

ownership changes (e.g., a holder of 

10% of the equity came to hold 50%), 

the provider would have to report than 

change. But if there is a change in 

ownership that does not reach the 

reportable level (e.g., a holder of two 

percent of the equity came to hold six 

percent), no update would have to be 

filed. Alternatively, if the provider that 

obtained direct access authorization 

under our revised rules did not have 

reportable ownership percentages and 

information (whether on domestic or 

foreign owners) at the time of its 

original application, but subsequently 

has reportable information, we require it 

to provide the information as an update 

to its authorization within a 30-day 

timeframe. We also delegate authority to 

the Bureau to direct the Numbering 

Administrator to suspend number 

requests if the Bureau determines, based 

on updated information, that further 

review of the direct access authorization 

is necessary. 

26. This requirement builds upon the 

current rules, which require each 

interconnected VoIP provider with 

direct access to numbering resources to 

maintain the accuracy of all the contact 

information and certifications submitted 

in its application, and to file a 

correction with the Commission and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80624 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

each applicable state within 30 days of 

any change to the contact information or 

certifications. Going forward, obtaining 

such updates regarding changes to 

ownership information will help us 

ensure that direct access authorization 

holders’ ownership does not change 

post-authorization in a manner contrary 

to the public interest, such as 

introducing a potential bad actor-owner 

that facilitates illegal robocalling, poses 

a threat to the national security and law 

enforcement interests of the United 

States, or otherwise engages in conduct 

detrimental to the public interest. Under 

the current rules, bad actors could 

surreptitiously strengthen their 

influence on authorization holders by 

increasing their ownership after the 

Commission grants the initial 

authorization, thereby evading 

Commission oversight and undermining 

enforcement efforts if that change in 

ownership levels did not have to be 

reported. By requiring all ownership 

information to be updated within 30 

days of a change, potential bad actors 

can no longer remain hidden from view. 

In fact, such information can be used to 

determine whether a change in 

authorization is warranted (e.g., making 

the authorization be conditioned on a 

mitigation agreement, or even revoking 

the authorization). 

27. The National Association of 

Attorneys General supports requiring 

interconnected VoIP authorization 

grantees to update their ownership 

information after a change. Some 

commenters oppose it, however, arguing 

that such a requirement would be 

onerous and unnecessary, especially 

with regard to information that has no 

bearing on the Commission’s objective 

to prevent foreign bad actors from 

gaining direct access to U.S. numbers, 

and is not competitively neutral because 

non-VoIP providers would not have to 

provide it. Twilio also questions 

whether the 30-day deadline is truly 

necessary to advance the Commission’s 

objectives, rather than an annual or 

biennial update. 

28. We reject these arguments because 

we believe the public interest benefit of 

a requirement to keep all ownership 

data up to date within 30 days of a 

change outweighs the minimal burden 

on grantees. As stated in the VoIP Direct 

Access FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 

2021), ‘‘obtaining such updates will 

help us to ensure that the ownership [of 

grantees] does not change postauthorization in a manner that evades 

the purpose of application review.’’ No 

commenter proposed a ‘‘materiality 

threshold’’ to determine when 

ownership data updates must be filed, 

and we therefore decline to adopt one. 

Absent an update requirement, 

applicants could skirt the more 

extensive review that applies to 

applications with reportable foreign 

ownership simply by delaying the 

investment by a foreign entity. This 

could even occur unintentionally as the 

result of an unexpected investment or 

buyout by a foreign entity. In either 

case, the update requirement helps 

ensure authorization holders with 

reportable foreign ownership receive an 

appropriate level of scrutiny in light of 

their changed ownership, so the 

Commission could consider, for 

example, whether the provider should 

enter a robocall mitigation agreement. 

We also conclude that requiring updates 

within 30 days, rather than annually or 

biennially, is a better way to ensure the 

Commission has current information, 

and that providing updated ownership 

information is relevant to our efforts to 

eliminate illegal robocalls for all the 

reasons stated above regarding 

providing foreign ownership data in 

applications. Finally, while non-VoIP 

direct access applicants are not covered 

by this new rule, we do not believe the 

burden on interconnected VoIP 

providers is so large as to affect 

competition, and in any event do not 

foreclose imposing this same duty on 

non-VoIP applicants in the future. 

29. Filing procedure. We require all 

updated or corrected ownership 

information to be filed in the Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) through 

the Direct Access intake docket (Inbox 

52.15) and via email to DAA@fcc.gov, 

unless the Bureau specifies another 

method. We note that the Bureau may 

request additional documentation as 

necessary. 

30. State submission requirement. 

Interconnected VoIP providers obtaining 

direct access authorization under the 

revised rules we issue in this document 

also are required to submit updated or 

corrected ownership information to the 

states from which the authorization 

holder has acquired or requested 

numbers at the time of the ownership 

change. Such information should be 

submitted to states in the same manner 

the providers would submit a correction 

or update to their original applications. 

31. Executive Branch agencies’ review 

of corrected information. As proposed 

in the VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), we also delegate 

authority to the Bureau to direct the 

Numbering Administrator, pursuant to 

its applicable procedures, to suspend all 

pending and future requests for 

numbers if the updated or corrected 

ownership information submitted by an 

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. In the foreign ownership 

context, if updated or corrected 

ownership information leads the 

Commission to refer the authorization 

holder to the Executive Branch agencies, 

the Bureau shall also direct the 

Numbering Administrator to suspend all 

pending and future requests for 

numbers until such review is complete 

and a determination is made by the 

Bureau. 

32. Use of numbers after submission 

of updated or new information. Finally, 

we note that authorization holders may 

continue to use numbers they obtained 

prior to submitting updated or corrected 

ownership information to the Bureau 

unless the Bureau determines that the 

authorization must be revoked per the 

formal revocation procedure we adopt 

below. 

Certifying Compliance With Other 

Commission Rules 

33. Under our current rules, 

interconnected VoIP providers seeking 

to obtain numbers must comply with 

various obligations that are designed to 

enhance public safety, prevent access 

stimulation and intercarrier 

compensation abuse, ensure that 

Commission broadband maps are 

accurate, and ensure that providers 

actually provide the service they 

describe. As we do in the robocall 

context above, we increase our 

enforcement capabilities and strengthen 

those rules by requiring interconnected 

VoIP providers to make certifications 

regarding their compliance with those 

rules in their direct access applications. 

34. Public safety certification. 

Consistent with our proposal in the 

VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), we revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules 

to require interconnected VoIP 

applicants for direct access 

authorization to certify that they comply 

with the Communications Assistance 

with Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). 

We also require applicants to provide 

evidence in their application that 

demonstrates their compliance with the 

Commission’s part 9 public safety rules 

and CALEA. To preserve flexibility and 

minimize burdens, we decline to 

prescribe precisely what evidence 

should be submitted to satisfy this 

requirement. We note that technical 

specifications and call-flow diagrams 

‘‘have been helpful to Commission staff 

in assessing direct access applicants’ 

compliance with 911 service and 

CALEA requirements in some cases.’’ 

Evidence of 911 service agreements may 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80625 

also be helpful to the Bureau’s review. 

We additionally delegate to Bureau or 

other Commission staff the right to 

request additional documentation from 

the applicant to demonstrate 

compliance with these public safety 

obligations, where necessary. 

35. As with the other certifications we 

adopt in this document, this new 

certification requirement will provide 

the Commission with additional 

enforcement abilities should the Bureau 

find that an authorization holder does 

not in fact comply with our public 

safety rules or CALEA. Our requirement 

to provide evidence of compliance with 

these obligations merely formalizes the 

preexisting Bureau practice of 

requesting such evidence after an 

application’s submission. By requiring 

this evidentiary showing at the outset, 

we promote efficiency by ensuring 

Bureau staff have the relevant 

documentation when they begin their 

application review. Additionally, 

because the ability to provide public 

safety answering points (PSAPs) with 

caller location and call-back numbers 

necessitates two-way interconnection 

with the public switched telephone 

network (PSTN), this requirement will 

help Bureau staff assess whether an 

applicant actually provides 

interconnected VoIP service. 

36. Several parties support this 

measure. The Maine Public Utilities 

Commission suggests that we should 

additionally require providers to submit 

the 911-related documentation to state 

regulatory and public safety agencies. 

Additionally, Lumen and USTelecom 

argue that this documentation 

submission requirement would be 

unduly burdensome if applied 

retroactively to existing authorization 

holders. We understand these concerns 

and decline to make this requirement 

retroactive at this time. We decline to 

take this approach because state 

regulatory agencies vary widely in terms 

of their jurisdiction over interconnected 

VoIP providers. While some states treat 

interconnected VoIP providers like 

communications service providers for 

specified purposes, others have statutes 

expressly limiting or removing their 

jurisdiction over interconnected VoIP 

providers altogether. A general 

requirement to send such 

documentation to state regulatory 

agencies would not be tailored 

appropriately to ensure only those 

agencies that have an interest in that 

information would receive it. Tailoring 

such a requirement to apply only to 

those states with jurisdiction over 

interconnected VoIP providers is also 

undesirable because it would create 

regulatory asymmetry that is not 

competitively neutral. We address 

additional state-related issues in Part 

III.A.4 below. 

37. Access Stimulation certification. 

The VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), sought comment 

on possible changes to our direct access 

authorization rules to help combat 

Access Stimulation and other forms of 

intercarrier compensation arbitrage. In 

April of this year, we adopted a Second 

Report and Order, 88 FR 35743 (June 1, 

2023) (Access Arbitrage Second Report 

and Order), in the Access Arbitrage 

docket which closed perceived 

loopholes in our Access Stimulation 

rules that some entities, including 

interconnected VoIP providers, were 

exploiting to the detriment of 

interexchange carriers (IXCs) and their 

end-user customers. Given the revisions 

to our Access Stimulation rules adding 

new requirements for internet Protocol 

Enabled Service (IPES) Providers— 

which include interconnected VoIP 

providers—we adopt a new certification 

that cross-references those new rules to 

help ensure applicants for direct access 

to numbers are aware of, and comply 

with them. We thus revise § 52.15(g)(3) 

of the Commission’s rules to require 

interconnected VoIP providers applying 

for direct access to numbers to certify 

that they comply with our Access 

Stimulation rules found in 47 CFR 

51.914. 

38. We adopt this requirement to help 

alleviate concerns that direct access 

authorization will be used to evade our 

Access Stimulation rules when the 

applicant is directly or indirectly related 

to an entity suspected of being an access 

stimulator. In our recent Access 

Arbitrage Second Report and Order, 88 

FR 35743 (June 1, 2023), we noted that, 

‘‘[d]espite multiple orders and 

investigations making clear the 

Commission will not tolerate access 

arbitrage, some providers continue to 

manipulate their call traffic or call flows 

in attempts to evade our rules. Recently, 

[local exchange carriers (LECs)] have 

inserted [IPES] Providers into call paths 

as part of an ongoing effort to evade our 

rules and to continue to engage in 

access stimulation. After inserting an 

IPES Provider into the call flow, the LEC 

then claims that it is not engaged in 

access stimulation as currently defined 

in our rules.’’ This requirement will 

provide an additional enforcement 

mechanism if it is violated, including 

the potential for revocation of the 

provider’s direct access authorization. 

As with the other certifications we 

adopt in this document, we expect the 

threat of enforcement action related to a 

false certification to deter applications 

by those that would violate our rules, 

including those related to Access 

Stimulation. 

39. Commenters in both the Direct 

Access and our Access Arbitrage 

dockets have expressed support for this 

type of certification requirement as a 

means to deter interconnected VoIP 

providers from engaging in schemes to 

avoid the Access Stimulation rules. 

Verizon, for example, stated that ‘‘IPES 

providers with direct access should 

acknowledge and affirmatively agree to 

observe the Commission’s access 

stimulation rules. Access stimulating 

IPES providers would face 

consequences for making false 

certifications to the Commission.’’ 

AT&T agreed with Verizon, stating that 

‘‘[s]uch a requirement will give the 

Commission an additional arrow in its 

quiver in the fight against harmful 

arbitrage schemes and should not place 

an undue administrative burden on 

IPES providers.’’ We believe that these 

benefits Verizon and AT&T raise 

outweigh the concerns from some 

commenters that certifications that 

require interconnected VoIP providers 

to state their compliance with existing 

rules are duplicative or unnecessary. 

40. We decline to adopt additional 

requirements beyond the certification at 

this time, as our newly adopted Access 

Stimulation rules are designed to help 

address the issues that commenters have 

noted in this docket. Should we find 

that more action is necessary to restrict 

interconnected VoIP providers’ 

engagement in Access Stimulation 

schemes, we reserve the ability to revisit 

our conclusion here. We also agree with 

CCA that many of the suggestions we 

received in the record ‘‘go well beyond 

the scope of the Further Notice, [and] 

are not specifically related to 

interconnected VoIP providers directly 

obtaining telephone numbers.’’ 

41. FCC Form 477 and 499 filings. 

Under our rules, interconnected VoIP 

providers that have qualifying 

subscribers must file FCC Forms 477 

and 499. Interconnected VoIP providers 

that have one or more revenuegenerating end-user customers must file 

FCC Form 477, a semiannual reporting 

obligation that, for interconnected VoIP 

providers, collects data regarding (1) the 

number of service subscriptions sold to 

their own end-user customers by census 

tract and, for each census tract, shall 

provide the number of subscriptions 

provided under consumer service plans; 

and (2) the service characteristics for its 

subscriptions in each state. As proposed 

in the VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), we revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules 

to require interconnected VoIP 

providers that must file FCC Forms 477 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80626 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and 499 to provide evidence that they 

have complied with these obligations, 

and any successor filing obligations, 

when filing a direct access application. 

Should providers not have evidence of 

filing these forms, their certification 

should explain the reasons why. The 

2015 VoIP Direct Access Order, 80 FR 

66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), noted that during 

the procedural review of direct access 

applications, Bureau staff routinely 

verify that both FCC Forms 477 and 499 

have been filed, if applicable. For 

providers that do not have eligible 

subscribers at the time of filing their 

direct access applications, we expect 

but do not require such providers to 

submit evidence of their submissions 

when they become obligated to do so 

under our rules. Our new rule 

formalizes this inquiry into an 

application requirement which, again, 

promotes efficiency and adds another 

layer of enforcement capability. We note 

that submission of FCC Forms 477 and 

499 filing receipts would constitute 

prima facie evidence of compliance 

with these rules. The FCC Form 477 

filing system will no longer be used to 

collect new FCC Form 477 submissions, 

and will remain open only for filers to 

make corrections to existing FCC Form 

477 filings for data as of June 30, 2022 

and earlier. We also note that, beginning 

with data as of December 31, 2022, 

providers, including interconnected 

VoIP providers, are required to submit 

the following data using the Broadband 

Data Collection (BDC) filing system: 

fixed and mobile broadband and voice 

FCC Form 477 subscription data, fixed 

and mobile BDC broadband availability 

data, BDC mobile voice availability data. 

Compliance With State Laws 

42. The 2015 VoIP Direct Access 

Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), and 

current rules require an interconnected 

VoIP provider to acknowledge a duty to 

comply with state guidelines and 

procedures adopted under the 

numbering authority the Commission 

has delegated to the states. In the VoIP 

Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 

(Sept. 14, 2021), the Commission asked 

whether to revise this rule to state that 

interconnected VoIP providers holding a 

numbering authorization must comply 

with state numbering requirements and 

other applicable requirements for 

businesses operating in the state. Having 

considered the record, we now revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) to make clear that 

interconnected VoIP applicants and 

authorization holders that request 

numbering resources from the 

Numbering Administrator for a 

particular state must acknowledge that 

their direct access authorization is 

subject to compliance with both state 

numbering requirements and to the 

laws, regulations, and registration 

requirements applicable to them as 

businesses operating in that state, not 

merely state requirements specifically 

issued under Commission delegated 

numbering authority. Upon the effective 

date of these new rules, direct access 

applicants must expressly acknowledge 

in their applications that they will 

comply with such laws. 

43. One of the original purposes of the 

requirement to comply with state 

delegated numbering authority law was 

to promote competitive neutrality by 

requiring interconnected VoIP providers 

with direct access to numbering 

resources to be subject to the same 

numbering requirements as carriers 

getting numbers for that state. 

Unfortunately, it appears some 

interconnected VoIP providers have 

assumed they have no duty to abide by 

other state requirements because 

§ 52.15(g)(3)(i)(B) focuses solely on 

delegated numbering authority. That is 

not the Commission’s intent and is 

inconsistent with the goal of 

competitive neutrality. The revision we 

adopt in this document addresses this 

unintended consequence and helps 

keep interconnected VoIP providers on 

a more equal footing with local 

exchange carriers (LECs) (which must 

comply with state general registration 

requirements pursuant to their 

certificates of public convenience and 

necessity and status as businesses 

operating in the states). It will directly 

help avoid confusion over the duty to 

comply with applicable state laws 

beyond delegated numbering matters. 

Equally important, it will discourage 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

authorization holders from requesting 

numbering resources for states where 

they do not serve end-user customers, a 

practice that contributes to the exhaust 

of numbering resources in that state. By 

clarifying that VoIP direct access 

authorization holders must also 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 consumerprotection issues, including unlawful 

robocalling. For example, state 

commissions assert that requiring 

interconnected VoIP direct access 

authorization holders to comply with 

state law through their registration 

requirements will ensure that state 

authorities have the information needed 

to identify providers involved in 

unlawful robocalling. 

44. Several state commissions support 

this requirement. They observe there 

has been confusion, or at least 

disagreement, about the extent to which 

interconnected VoIP providers with 

direct access to numbering resources 

must comply with general state-law 

duties applicable to other businesses 

obtaining numbers in the states, such as 

LECs. In Maine, for example, voice 

service providers must register with the 

Maine Public Utilities Commission’s 

(PUC) third-party administrator for the 

Maine Universal Service Fund and the 

Maine Telecommunications Education 

Access Fund. The Maine PUC staff, 

however, has found it does not always 

have the information it needs to 

determine whether interconnected VoIP 

providers doing business in Maine are 

contributing to these funds, which it 

says is required by state law. Other state 

commissions note similar issues. 

45. In light of this record evidence, we 

disagree with commenters who say 

there has been no confusion about the 

scope of the duty to comply with state 

law or that this revised rule amounts to 

a new delegation of numbering 

authority to the states. Our revised rule 

in this document concerns state laws, 

regulations and registration 

requirements applicable to them as 

businesses operating in a given state, 

separate from any Commission 

delegation of numbering authority. We 

are not delegating any new numbering 

authority to the states here. Rather, the 

purpose is to make plain that direct 

access applicants must acknowledge 

that their authorization is contingent on 

complying not only with state 

requirements issued under delegated 

numbering authority, but also with 

other independently applicable state 

obligations, such as registration 

requirements, that would apply to them 

as businesses operating in the state. 

46. We also disagree with commenters 

who argue that requiring interconnected 

VoIP providers to acknowledge that 

their direct access authorization is 

subject to compliance with applicable 

state requirements would undermine 

the Commission’s 2004 Vonage Order 

and its preemption of most state 

regulation of interconnected VoIP 

service. As explained in the Vonage 

Order, that decision ‘‘express[ed] no 

opinion’’ on the applicability to an 

interconnected VoIP provider of a state’s 

‘‘general laws governing entities 

conducting business within the state, 

such as laws concerning taxation; fraud; 

general commercial dealings; and 

marketing, advertising, and other 

business practices.’’ The Commission 

also stated in that order that ‘‘as we 

move forward in establishing policy and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80627 

rules for . . . IP-enabled services, states 

will continue to play their vital role in 

protecting consumers from fraud, 

enforcing fair business practices, for 

example, in advertising and billing, and 

generally responding to consumer 

inquiries and complaints.’’ Accordingly, 

even after the Vonage Order, WC Docket 

No. 03–211, Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22404 (2004), the 

Commission has permitted states to 

require interconnected VoIP providers 

to contribute to state universal service 

funds and pay state fees related to 911/ 

E911 service. VON and Microsoft raised 

concerns that our revised rule could 

mistakenly be interpreted by state 

commissions as expanding the 

permissible scope of state regulation of 

interconnected VoIP services. To avoid 

any doubt, we clarify that, as stated in 

the VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), by adopting this 

revised rule we do not address the 

statutory classification of 

interconnected VoIP services as 

telecommunications or nontelecommunications services, nor do we 

address, expand or alter, the scope of 

states’ authority to regulate 

interconnected VoIP service, as reflected 

in the Vonage Order and established 

Commission policy. In a separate 

preemption argument in this record, 

Terra Nova Telecom claims 

interconnected VoIP services compete 

with the Commercial Mobile Radio 

Service (CMRS) and that Congress has 

preempted state market entry or rate 

regulation of CMRS under section 

332(c)(3) of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended. Terra Nova submits, 

therefore, that the Commission should 

not allow states to impose requirements 

on interconnected VoIP services that 

they could not impose on CMRS, such 

as the kinds of requirements the 

Louisiana PSC seeks to impose on Terra 

Nova before issuing it telephone 

numbers. But Terra Nova points to no 

authority stating that the scope of 

preemption is identical for 

interconnected VoIP services and 

CMRS, and section 332(c)(3) is specific 

to CMRS. Terra Nova also takes issue 

with several requirements it alleges the 

Louisiana PSC seeks to impose on it as 

a prerequisite to giving numbers to 

Terra Nova (which already was granted 

direct access authority by this 

Commission). Terra Nova contends that 

several of these requirements amount to 

market-entry or public utility-style 

regulation of the kind preempted by the 

Vonage Order. We lack adequate 

information to resolve this specific 

dispute in the context of this general 

rulemaking. 

47. We also disagree with arguments 

that the revised rule is too vague 

because it does not specify the 

particular state requirements that could 

apply to interconnected VoIP providers 

with direct access to numbering 

resources. Any such list inevitably 

would risk being incomplete or quickly 

outdated. The point of our rule revision 

is to have applicants acknowledge their 

direct access authorization is subject to 

compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, and registration 

requirements for businesses operating in 

the state(s) where the authorization 

holder seeks to obtain numbers. We 

note, moreover, that any interconnected 

VoIP provider obtaining numbering 

resources from a state pursuant to 

§ 52.15(g)(3)(i)(C) presumably would 

already be evaluating its potential duties 

under state law (e.g., registration with a 

secretary of state or tax authorities, 

possible obligations under state 

universal service funds or regarding 911 

fees) to an extent that allows it to 

acknowledge whether it will comply 

with state law. Our new application 

requirement therefore should not 

impose any added burdens on 

interconnected VoIP applicants beyond 

their normal preparation to begin 

dealing with a state and possibly 

providing service there. 

48. ‘‘Minimal contacts.’’ In order to 

help minimize numbering exhaust, the 

Commission asked whether it should 

adopt a ‘‘minimal contacts’’ requirement 

that interconnected VoIP providers 

would have to meet in order to obtain 

numbering resources in a given state. 

Having considered the record, we refer 

this issue to the NANC, as discussed 

below in Part III.C. The Commission has 

not explicitly prohibited the use of 

numbering resources requested for one 

state to serve customers in other states, 

whether the entity obtaining the 

numbers is a LEC or an interconnected 

VoIP provider holding a direct access 

authorization. We recognize that a LEC 

is more likely to have contacts with the 

state for which it has requested 

numbering resources, such as physical 

facilities, a CPCN, and a state 

registration. At this time, however, we 

do not have sufficient record evidence 

to fully assess this issue, and attempting 

to define ‘‘minimal contacts’’ for 

interconnected VoIP providers here 

would risk unintentionally imposing a 

new requirement that numbering 

resources requested for a particular state 

be used to serve at least some customers 

in that state. Absent such a new 

requirement, which is outside the scope 

of this proceeding, a ‘‘minimal contacts’’ 

requirement would put the Commission 

into the position of having to evaluate 

the specific contacts of any direct access 

authorized interconnected VoIP 

provider for each particular state in 

which it seeks numbers, which 

inevitably would be a complex, 

provider-specific inquiry, and one for 

which we lack helpful Commission 

precedent. The California PUC 

commented that if ‘‘minimal contacts’’ 

means having customers in the state and 

operating authority by the state, it 

would support a ‘‘minimal contacts’’ 

requirement. Other state public utility 

commissions supported instituting a 

‘‘minimal contacts’’ requirement but did 

not offer any further detail regarding the 

standard. 

49. Nomadic interconnected VoIP 

providers. The revised state-law 

acknowledgment requirement we adopt 

applies to all interconnected VoIP 

providers requesting numbering 

resources in a particular state, even if 

their services are non-fixed or nomadic 

and not directly linked to the state 

corresponding to the respective area 

code. The fact that some interconnected 

VoIP providers provision non-fixed (or 

nomadic) services does not alter the 

applicability of the state-law 

acknowledgment requirement. 

RingCentral contends that state 

requirements other than those issued 

under delegated numbering authority 

cannot apply to them because nomadic 

VoIP services ‘‘are impossible to 

segregate into intrastate and interstate 

components’’ and therefore are subject 

to ‘‘exclusive federal jurisdiction.’’ Nonfixed or nomadic interconnected VoIP 

service providers request numbering 

resources from states and therefore 

place burdens on each such state’s 

numbering resources just as their fixedVoIP counterparts do. It would also 

burden state commissions to determine 

the precise geographic locations of nonfixed providers each time a numbering 

request was received. State commissions 

strongly supported applying the statelaw acknowledgment requirement to 

non-fixed and nomadic interconnected 

VoIP providers, and we agree with such 

a requirement. 

50. Directing the Numbering 

Administrator to deny applications. We 

delegate authority to the Bureau to 

direct the Numbering Administrator to 

deny requests for numbering resources 

from an interconnected VoIP provider 

when the Commission is notified (e.g., 

by a state commission) that the provider 

is not complying with independently 

applicable state legal requirements. It is 

important that there be some clear 

consequence of not complying with 

applicable state laws when obtaining 

numbering resources from a state based 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80628 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

on a Federal numbering authorization. 

Our actions here also are consistent 

with current practice, under which, 

when a state reports that a provider is 

not complying with state requirements, 

the Numbering Administrator may deny 

that provider’s numbering requests. 

Although we believe that existing 

practices conform with § 52.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, making the 

requirement explicit clarifies the 

process so as to leave no doubt as to 

these requirements. 

Ensuring the Accuracy of Application 

Contents 

51. We revise § 52.15(g)(3) of the 

Commission’s rules to require an officer 

or authorized representative of the 

applicant to submit a declaration under 

penalty of perjury, pursuant to § 1.16 of 

the rules, attesting that all statements in 

the application and any appendices are 

true and accurate. We specify that false 

statements or certifications made to the 

Commission may result in rejection of 

an application or revocation of an 

authorization. Consistent with warnings 

included in filings for other 

Commission authorizations and CPNI 

certifications, we remind applicants that 

willful false statements are also 

punishable by fine and/or 

imprisonment, and/or forfeiture. 

Requiring a declaration under penalty of 

perjury will help ensure applications 

are accurate and that applicants are 

taking the application process seriously. 

The new declaration will also dissuade 

bad actors from filing false information 

or filing altogether out of fear of 

committing the crime of perjury and 

suffering increased punishment. 

52. Our rules prohibit any applicant 

for any Commission authorization from 

making material false statements or 

omissions of material information in its 

dealings with the Commission. Our 

addition of a declaration under penalty 

of perjury is consistent with the 

international section 214 application 

process, and the authorization process 

for many other FCC authorizations, in 

which applicants include a verification 

executed by an officer or other 

authorized representative that the 

information included in the filing is true 

and accurate. This requirement is also 

consistent with Robocall Mitigation 

Database filings, which must include a 

declaration under penalty of perjury 

pursuant to § 1.16 of the Commission’s 

rules. We further note that many direct 

access applicants already provide this 

type of declaration voluntarily. 

Other Issues 

53. Declining to expand direct access 

to numbers. Under our existing rules, 

VoIP direct access applicants must 

provide interconnected VoIP services 

rather than one-way VoIP or other types 

of services that make use of numbers. 

The Commission sought comment on 

whether to allow one-way VoIP or other 

types of service providers to have direct 

access to numbers. We elect not to do 

so at this time. The record does not 

support this expansion of direct access 

and, indeed, contains some opposition 

to doing so until the guardrails 

proposed in the VoIP Direct Access 

FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), 

are adopted and effectively 

implemented. By avoiding unnecessary 

or premature expansion of direct access 

to such providers, we better protect 

valuable and limited numbering 

resources from potential bad actors, 

both because fewer entities will have 

direct access to numbers and because 

interconnected VoIP providers engage in 

commercial agreements with carriers 

and have obligations and checks that 

one-way providers may not. One-way 

VoIP providers have fewer regulatory 

obligations than traditional carriers or 

interconnected VoIP providers. Our 

action is also consistent with the 

rationale in the 2015 VoIP Direct Access 

Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), for 

limiting direct access authorizations to 

interconnected VoIP providers. That 

order found that interconnected VoIP 

providers are more likely than other 

VoIP providers to need direct access to 

numbers because they are more likely to 

provide service used by consumers to 

replace ‘‘plain old telephone service’’ 

(POTS), and because outbound-only 

VoIP service does not require telephone 

numbers. 

54. Facilities readiness certification. 

The VoIP Direct Access Order, 80 FR 

66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), provided 

examples of what an applicant could 

submit to show ‘‘facilities readiness’’ as 

required by 47 CFR 52.15(g)(3)(i)(D). We 

sought comment on whether to revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) of the direct access rules to 

explicitly specify the documents that 

will be allowed to satisfy the ‘‘facilities 

readiness’’ requirement. Comments on 

the issue were divided, and, having 

considered the issue further, we decline 

to revise our rule. Rather, we conclude 

that the examples of technical 

documentation and information that 

applicants may submit to demonstrate 

facilities readiness in the VoIP Direct 

Access Order, 80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 

2015), will continue to suffice. This 

approach preserves the flexibility of 

interconnected VoIP providers to submit 

information that is relevant to the 

unique characteristics of their networks. 

We also reaffirm our delegation of 

authority to the Bureau to request 

additional documentation on a case-bycase basis as necessary. 

55. Know-your-customer certification. 

Section 64.1200(n)(3) requires voice 

service providers to ‘‘[t]ake affirmative, 

effective measures to prevent new and 

renewing customers from using its 

network to originate illegal calls, 

including knowing its customers and 

exercising due diligence in ensuring 

that its services are not used to originate 

illegal traffic.’’ The VoIP Direct Access 

FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), 

sought comment on whether to require 

direct access applicants to certify that 

they ‘‘ ‘know their customer’ through 

customer identity verification.’’ 

Comments on this topic were mixed. 

After considering the record, we decline 

to adopt a specific know-your-customer 

certification at this time. As discussed 

below in the section addressing our 

referrals to the NANC, interconnected 

VoIP providers often resell numbers that 

they have obtained through the direct 

access process to third-party providers. 

Additionally, our decision to study the 

issue of number resale further, our 

adoption of new certifications as part of 

interconnected VoIP providers’ 

applications for direct access 

authorization, and potential future 

action regarding number resale and 

indirect access recipient certifications, 

may accomplish the same objectives as 

would adopting a know-your-customer 

certification. We therefore reserve for 

future determination whether to adopt 

such a certification in the direct access 

application context. 

Application Review and Authorization 

Oversight 

56. In this section, we adopt measures 

to facilitate greater transparency 

regarding the review of direct access 

applications, make explicit our 

procedures for rejecting applications, 

and expand the bases on which direct 

access authorizations may be revoked 

and adopt a process for such 

revocations. 

Codifying the Process for Reviewing 

Direct Access Applications 

57. As proposed, we revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission’s rules 

to formalize the process for reviewing 

direct access applications. We direct 

Bureau staff to conduct a due-diligence 

review of an applicant’s direct access 

application prior to seeking comment on 

it. This due-diligence review shall 

include, but is not limited to, 

determining whether the applicant is 

the subject of a past or pending 

Enforcement Bureau inquiry or whether 

the applicant has reportable foreign 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80629 

ownership. This initial review process 

is critical to ensure illegal robocallers 

and other bad actors do not gain access 

to finite numbering resources. As noted 

above, we direct the Bureau to withhold 

placing any application submitted by an 

applicant with reportable foreign 

ownership on streamlined processing 

(that is, withhold issuing an ‘‘Acceptedfor-Filing Public Notice’’). Additionally, 

the Bureau retains the authority to 

determine, at its discretion, whether to 

accept an application for nonstreamlined filing so that it may further 

analyze whether a grant is in the public 

interest during and after the prescribed 

comment period. Furthermore, if the 

Bureau finds that an application raises 

public interest concerns, it may 

withhold placing it on streamlined 

processing until those concerns are 

addressed through applicant 

supplements or otherwise, even if the 

application otherwise meets procedural 

requirements. One commenter generally 

supported this approach, and no 

commenter opposed it. 

58. The action we take in this 

document formalizes this preexisting 

practice and makes explicit the Bureau’s 

authority in the rules. Specifically, the 

rules shall state that the Bureau will 

review direct access applications to 

ensure that they are complete and 

appropriate for streamlined treatment 

before the Bureau issues a public notice 

accepting the application for filing. By 

taking this step, we draw on our similar 

procedure governing review of 

international section 214 applications, 

and promote greater transparency and 

predictability for applicants regarding 

the process and timing applicable to a 

potential authorization. We note that 

applicants must provide additional 

information as requested by the Bureau 

during and after its initial review of a 

direct access application. Such 

responses must be submitted to the 

Bureau using the same method for 

submitting original application 

materials, unless otherwise directed. 

The majority of commenters supported 

Commission efforts to fight illegal 

robocalling and fraud, and staff 

diligence in reviewing applications and 

coordination with the Enforcement 

Bureau is part of ensuring potential 

robocallers do not gain access to 

numbering resources. 

Codifying the Processes for Rejecting 

Direct Access Applications 

59. We next revise § 52.15(g)(3) of the 

Commission’s rules to authorize the 

Bureau to reject an application when it 

determines the applicant cannot satisfy 

the qualifications for a direct access 

authorization or that granting the 

application would not be in the public 

interest. We also adopt the proposal to 

authorize the Bureau, in its discretion, 

to reject applications submitted by an 

applicant which it has a reasonable 

basis to believe has engaged in behavior 

contrary to the public interest. As 

described above, we also authorize the 

Bureau to reject an application if it 

determines that the applicant made a 

false or misleading statement. We 

further conclude that the Bureau may 

reject applications if, for example, the 

Commission determines that an 

applicant with reportable foreign 

ownership presents national security, 

law enforcement, foreign policy, and/or 

trade policy risks. Next, to improve 

transparency, we also direct the Bureau 

to announce rejection decisions, the 

reasons for the rejection, and whether 

they are with or without prejudice via 

public notice. The record supports this 

action with no opposition. Similar to 

our action described above regarding 

codifying the Bureau’s review process, 

this action codifying the Bureau’s 

authority to reject applications makes 

explicit a practice that already occurs 

under our current rules. We believe this 

delegation of authority formalizing these 

practices leads to greater transparency 

and predictability. 

Revocation of Authorization 

60. We next adopt procedures 

concerning the grounds for revocation 

and/or termination of direct access to 

numbers authorizations. Specifically, 

we find that the Commission may 

revoke and/or terminate direct access to 

numbers authorizations of 

interconnected VoIP providers for 

failure to comply with the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended (Act) and its implementing 

rules, other applicable laws and 

regulations, and/or where retention of 

those authorizations no longer serves 

the public interest. The Commission’s 

Bureaus and Offices have revoked and/ 

or terminated licenses and 

authorizations where warranted and 

within the scope of their authority. We 

revise § 52.15(g)(3) of the Commission’s 

rules to specify the grounds on which 

we can revoke and/or terminate direct 

access authorizations, namely if: the 

authorization holder has failed to 

comply with the Commission’s 

numbering rules; the authorization 

holder no longer meets the 

qualifications for a direct access 

authorization (e.g., the authorization 

holder no longer meets the application 

certification requirements or the 

conditions applicable to authorization 

holders under the Commission’s rules); 

the Commission uses the term 

‘‘termination’’ where an authorization is 

terminated based on the authorization 

holder’s failure to comply with a 

condition of the authorization, and has 

determined that the procedures 

applicable to termination need not 

mirror the procedures used for 

revocation of authorizations; the 

authorization holder, or officer or 

authorized representative of the 

authorization holder, has made a false 

statement or certification to the 

Commission; or revoking and/or 

terminating the authorization is in the 

public interest (e.g., the Commission’s 

assessment of the record evidence, 

including any filing by the Executive 

Branch agencies stating that retention of 

the authorization presents national 

security, law enforcement, foreign 

policy, and/or trade policy concerns 

and/or violates the terms of a mitigation 

agreement reached with the Executive 

Branch agencies). 

61. We delegate authority to the 

Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau to 

determine appropriate procedures and 

initiate revocation and/or termination 

proceedings and to revoke and/or 

terminate an authorization, as required 

by due process and applicable law and 

in light of the relevant facts and 

circumstances, including providing the 

authorization holder with notice and 

opportunity to respond. In recent 

revocation proceedings, the Commission 

exercised its discretion to ‘‘resolve 

disputes of fact in an informal hearing 

proceeding on a written record,’’ and 

reasonably determined that the issues 

raised in those cases could be properly 

resolved through the presentation and 

exchange of full written submissions 

before the Commission itself. 

62. We also delegate authority to the 

Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau to 

direct the Numbering Administrator to 

suspend the authorization holder’s 

access to new numbering resources after 

either bureau determines that the 

authorization holder acted willfully; or 

public health, interest, or safety requires 

an immediate suspension; or after giving 

the authorization holder notice and an 

opportunity to demonstrate or achieve 

compliance with our rules. Once either 

bureau revokes and/or terminates the 

authorization, the interconnected VoIP 

provider may no longer obtain 

additional numbers from the Numbering 

Administrator. While we do not at this 

time require an interconnected VoIP 

provider to return its numbers once the 

Bureau has revoked its direct access 

authorization, we refer to the NANC 

how such a requirement would impact 

consumers, end-users, and providers, 

and whether such a requirement would 

be feasible. Relatedly, we also do not at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80630 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

this time restrict such providers from 

accessing numbering databases that may 

be necessary for providing service, such 

as routing and porting, for numbers it 

already has. Interconnected VoIP 

providers that have had their 

authorizations revoked may reapply for 

a new authorization if they can 

demonstrate that they have cured the 

grounds for the revocation and have 

taken measures to ensure they will not 

arise again. At this time, we decline to 

adopt number reclamation as a 

consequence of a revocation of direct 

access authorization. We refer the issue 

of the impact of number reclamation on 

consumers and end-users to the NANC. 

We therefore note that a revocation of 

direct access authorization does not 

obviate an interconnected VoIP 

provider’s obligations under our rules 

with respect to the numbering resources 

it still maintains. These obligations 

include, e.g., filing NRUF reports, 

making NANP cost-support 

contributions, and updating the 

Reassigned Numbers Database. 

63. As affirmed recently in our Caller 

ID Authentication Sixth Report and 

Order, 88 FR 29035 (May 5, 2023), 

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 

addition, holders of these and all 

Commission authorizations have a clear 

and demonstrable duty to operate in the 

public interest. The action we take in 

this document promotes transparency 

into our direct access authorization 

enforcement mechanisms by formalizing 

in our rules the procedure by which we 

will revoke such authorizations. This 

step will put bad actors on notice 

regarding the consequences they will 

face if they flout the rules. Our 

delegation of authority to the Bureaus 

will permit efficient processing of 

revocations, allowing the Commission 

to respond to bad actors in a timely 

manner. 

64. The record overwhelmingly 

supports these proposals. One 

commenter, for example, states that ‘‘[i]t 

is important for the Commission to 

affirm its commitment to invoking this 

enforcement authority, because 

complaints under section 208 cannot be 

brought against VoIP providers, given 

their lack of common carrier status. Use 

of this enforcement authority with 

respect to VoIP entities will help 

‘combat access stimulation and other 

intercarrier compensation 

abuses. . . .’ ’’ Similarly, another 

commenter states ‘‘if a Direct Access 

grantee is clearly found to be engaged in 

[intercarrier compensation] arbitrage 

abuse, the FCC must impose real 

consequences for such abuses because 

VoIP providers and other noncommon 

carrier Direct Access grantees are not 

subject to section 208 of the 

Communications Act.’’ 

North American Numbering Council 

Referrals 

65. Number use and resale generally. 

The VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 

51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), sought comment 

on whether direct access applicants 

should certify that the numbers they are 

applying for will only be used to 

provide interconnected VoIP services. 

The record we received regarding this 

issue was insufficient for us to 

determine precisely how interconnected 

VoIP providers are using the numbers 

they obtain, whether any such uses 

result in violations of our rules, and 

whether any further restrictions would 

have anticompetitive effects or impair 

neutrality with respect to technology. 

While the revised certifications and 

accompanying obligations we adopt 

herein should substantially aid our 

efforts to curtail unlawful uses of 

numbering resources, questions remain 

as to how numbers obtained by 

interconnected VoIP providers may 

continue to facilitate illegal robocalling 

or access stimulation, as well as how 

our policies affect number exhaustion in 

particular area codes. The NANC is 

entrusted with advising the Commission 

on numbering policy and technical 

issues associated with numbering ‘‘in 

the changing world of communications’’ 

and must ensure that the NANP 

administration does not unduly favor or 

disfavor one technology over another. In 

light of the limited record on this 

important issue of number use by 

interconnected VoIP providers, 

including number use by direct and 

indirect customers of such providers 

and further consideration of additional 

measures to combat illegal robocalls 

such as know-your-customer 

obligations, we therefore direct the 

Bureau to request that the NANC 

examine and report on: (1) how 

interconnected VoIP providers that 

obtain direct access to numbers are 

using those numbering resources today, 

including, for example, the extent to 

which they use numbers obtained in a 

state to serve the customers of that state, 

the extent to which they use numbers 

obtained via direct access to provide 

non-interconnected VoIP service, and 

the extent to which numbers obtained 

via direct access are resold to other 

providers; (2) those uses in terms of 

compliance with the Commission’s 

robocalling, Access Stimulation and 

other rules, area code exhaustion, and 

other public interest concerns, 

including potential consumer benefits 

or competitive harms of increasing the 

availability of direct access to numbers 

or placing more limits on the use of 

numbers obtained via direct access; and 

(3) possible options for mitigating any 

identified adverse impacts on 

consumers of number disuse, misuse, 

and resale, and how any Commissionimposed requirements for, or limits on, 

number use or resale would impact 

consumers, providers, and competition. 

We additionally require that the NANC 

examine, in considering how to 

minimize the adverse impacts on 

consumers and/or area code exhaustion 

arising from interconnected VoIP 

providers obtaining numbers in a state 

where they serve few or no customers, 

the efficacy of Commission adoption of 

a ‘‘minimum contacts’’ requirement to 

obtain numbering resources in a 

particular state; and possible options for 

defining such a standard. 

66. Foreign-originated calls and use of 

numbers obtained indirectly. Questions 

also remain regarding the use of U.S. 

NANP numbers for calls that originate 

abroad and terminate in the U.S. market. 

In the Fifth Caller ID Authentication 

FNPRM, 87 FR 42670 (July 18, 2022), we 

sought comment on whether we should 

restrict the use of domestic numbering 

resources for such calls in order to 

prevent illegal robocalls, and whether 

other countries’ regulations provide a 

useful roadmap for our own. We also 

sought comment on whether we should 

restrict indirect access to numbers (e.g., 

numbers obtained on the secondary 

market) by both interconnected VoIP 

providers and carriers generally, or only 

for numbers that would be used in 

foreign-originated calls. 

67. Commenters in that proceeding 

agreed that some entities are 

increasingly using numbers obtained, 

particularly through indirect access, to 

originate illegal robocalls. TNS recently 

noted that ‘‘numbers may be purchased 

separately with one provider and linked 

with outbound calling minutes from a 

second,’’ which it argued ‘‘is a major 

source of bad actor traffic.’’ Indeed, the 

success of STIR/SHAKEN ‘‘may already 

be responsible for some bad actors 

shifting to acquiring batches of real 

numbers instead of spoofing.’’ 

Commenters disagreed, however, on 

whether and what steps should be taken 

to prevent such abuse, including the 

appropriate liability standard, and 

whether restrictions should apply to all 

providers or solely to interconnected 

VoIP providers. Commenters urged the 

Commission to proceed cautiously 

when considering restrictions. Notably, 

no party in that proceeding addressed 

the merits of specific foreign restrictions 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80631 

on numbering usage raised in the Caller 

ID Authentication Fifth FNPRM, 87 FR 

42670 (July 18, 2022), and their 

applicability to the U.S. marketplace. 

68. In light of the complexity of 

numbering arrangements, the mixed 

record in this and related proceedings 

where this issue has arisen, and limited 

comment on the specific number usage 

restrictions in place in other countries, 

we agree with commenters in the Call 

Authentication Trust Anchor docket 

who argue that we should proceed 

cautiously. We therefore direct the 

Bureau to request that the NANC 

examine and report on: the use of 

numbers obtained on the secondary 

market; numbers obtained on the 

secondary market would include, e.g., 

numbers obtained from a reseller or a 

carrier partner. As part of its referral, the 

Bureau may choose to include direction 

to investigate issues or proposals related 

to number misuse it concludes may 

benefit from focused NANC 

examination, including proposals raised 

by commenters in the record of this and 

other related proceedings. 

69. Supplying numbers to customers 

on a trial basis. In the VoIP Direct 

Access FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 

2021), we asked whether we should 

require direct access applicants to 

certify that they will not supply 

numbers on a trial basis to new 

customers (i.e., use of numbers for free 

for the first 30 days, etc.), a practice that 

commonly leads to bad actors gaining 

temporary control over numbers for the 

purposes of including misleading caller 

ID information. While some commenters 

agreed that supplying numbering 

resources for trial use can facilitate 

illegal robocalls, they provided no data 

to support their assertions. Accordingly, 

we refer this issue to the NANC for 

further study. We expect that this, and 

our other referrals to the NANC 

concerning number use, will give us a 

fuller picture regarding the customers’ 

use of numbering resources, and thereby 

aid our future consideration of whether 

to impose a know-your-customer 

certification requirement. Specifically, 

we direct the Bureau to request that the 

NANC examine and report on: the 

practice of direct access authorization 

holders supplying telephone numbers to 

customers on a trial basis; the use of 

such ‘‘trial basis’’ numbers to engage in 

illegal robocalling, spoofing, or fraud; 

the effect on authorization holders in 

the event of a Commission prohibition 

on providing numbers on a trial basis; 

and the effect of supplying telephone 

numbers to customers on a trial basis on 

numbering resource exhaust. 

70. Number reclamation. In the VoIP 

Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 

(Sept. 14, 2021), we sought comment on 

whether we should require an 

interconnected VoIP provider that has 

had its direct access authorization 

revoked to return the numbers that it 

has already obtained directly. Some 

commenters expressed concern that 

reclaiming numbers when direct access 

authority is revoked could have 

potential negative impacts on 

consumers, and that we should have 

proper procedures in place to mitigate 

these impacts. In light of the paucity of 

data submitted in the record, and in 

order to ensure that number reclamation 

as a consequence of a revocation of 

direct access authorization will not have 

a negative impact on consumers, we 

direct the NANC to study the benefits, 

risks, and solutions regarding 

reclamation of numbers when a direct 

access authorization is revoked, and the 

impact to consumers and end-users. 

Specifically, we direct the Bureau to 

request that the NANC examine and 

report on: the potential impact on 

consumers, end-users, and providers of 

number reclamation as a consequence of 

direct access authorization revocation; 

how providers or the Commission could 

mitigate any identifiable negative 

impacts for consumers and end-users; 

and how to accomplish returning 

reclaimed numbers to providers with 

reinstated direct access authorization. In 

its analysis, the NANC should 

additionally describe how 

interconnected VoIP providers use 

numbering databases in providing 

service, and how a restriction on 

accessing such databases would impact 

consumers, end-users, and providers. 

Cost-Benefit Analysis 

71. The rule clarifications and 

formalizations adopted in the Second 

Report and Order generally reflect a 

mandate from the TRACED Act. 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, 

85 FR 22029 (April 21, 2020), 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. The rules we adopt in 

the Second Report and Order are 

intended, consistent with the TRACED 

Act, 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 

place minimal burdens on 

interconnected VoIP providers, and our 

formalization of the direct access 

application review process will ensure 

efficient use of staff time, imposing 

appropriately small costs on 

Commission staff. We therefore 

conclude that the rules we adopt in the 

Second 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 

72. The VoIP Direct Access FNPRM, 

86 FR 51081 (Sept. 14, 2021), 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. No commenter opposed these 

proposals regarding the basis for our 

legal authority to adopt the 

requirements described in the Second 

Report and Order. We conclude that 

section 251(e) of the Act provides 

sufficient authority for the requirements 

adopted in this Report and Order and 

that section 6(a) of the TRACED Act 

provides both supplemental and 

independent authority for those 

requirements specifically related to 

fighting illegal robocalls. 

73. 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, 

80 FR 66454 (Oct. 29, 2015), 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80632 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

direct access to numbers by 

interconnected VoIP providers. 

74. 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 nontoll 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)).’’ 

75. The Commission commenced the 

required proceeding pursuant to the 

TRACED Act in March 2020, and 

expanded on those inquiries in the VoIP 

Direct Access FNPRM, 86 FR 51081 

(Sept. 14, 2021). 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. 

Procedural Matters 

76. 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, we have prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in the Second 

Report and Order on small entities. 

77. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document may contain new or modified 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

Specifically, the rules adopted in 47 

CFR 52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), 

(K), (L), and (N) and (g)(3)(x)(A) may 

require new or modified information 

collections. All such new or modified 

information collection requirements 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, we note 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. In this document, we 

describe several steps we have taken to 

minimize the information collection 

burdens on small entities. 

78. Contact Person. For further 

information about this proceeding, 

please contact Mason Shefa, FCC 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Competition Policy Division, at (202) 

418–2494, or mason.shefa@fcc.gov. 

Ordering Clauses 

79. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201 through 

205, 227b–1, 251, and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201 

through 205, 227b–1, 251, 303(r), and 

section 6(a) of the TRACED Act, Public 

Law 116–105, 6(a)(1) through (2), 133 

Stat. 3274, 3277 (2019), the Second 

Report and Order hereby is adopted and 

part 52 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 

CFR part 52, is amended. The Second 

Report and Order shall become effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register, except for 47 CFR 

52.15(g)(3)(ii)(B) through (F), (I), (K), (L), 

and (N) and (g)(3)(x)(A), which shall 

become effective upon an 

announcement in the Federal Register 

of OMB review and an effective date of 

those rules. 

80. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary, 

Reference Information Center, shall 

send a copy of the Second Report and 

Order, including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

81. it is further ordered that the Office 

of the Managing Director, Performance 

Evaluation and Records Management, 

shall send a copy of the Second 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). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Need for, and Objectives of, the Second 

Report and Order 

82. The Second Report and Order 

takes important steps aimed at 

stemming the tide of illegal robocalls 

perpetrated by interconnected 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. 

83. First, the Second Report and 

Order requires applicants to make 

robocall-related certifications to ensure 

compliance with the Commission’s 

rules targeting illegal robocalls. Second, 

to mitigate the risk of providing bad 

actors abroad with access to our 

numbering resources, it requires 

applicants to disclose and keep current 

information about their ownership. 

Third, it requires applicants to certify to 

their compliance with other 

Commission rules applicable to 

interconnected VoIP providers. Fourth, 

it requires providers requesting numbers 

from a state’s numbering administrator 

to comply with the state’s laws and 

registration requirements that are 

applicable to businesses requesting 

numbers in that state. Fifth, it requires 

applicants to include a signed 

declaration that their applications are 

true and accurate. Sixth, and finally, it 

formalizes the Bureau’s application 

review, application rejection, and 

authorization revocation processes. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by 

Public Comments in Response to the 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) 

84. There were no comments raised 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. Nonetheless, the Commission 

considered the potential impact of the 

rules proposed in the IRFA on small 

entities and took steps where 

appropriate and feasible to reduce the 

compliance burden for small entities in 

order to reduce the economic impact of 

the rules enacted herein on such 

entities. 

Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

85. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80633 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. The Chief 

Counsel did not file any comments in 

response to the proposed rules in this 

proceeding. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Rules 

Will Apply 

86. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules adopted herein. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small-business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘smallbusiness 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. 

87. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe, at the outset, three 

broad groups of small entities that could 

be directly affected herein. First, while 

there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a 

small business is an independent 

business having fewer than 500 

employees. These types of small 

businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 32.5 million businesses. 

88. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2020, there were approximately 

447,689 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

89. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate there were 90,075 

local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school district with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

90. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 

defines this industry as establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers are 

also referred to as wireline carriers or 

fixed local service providers. Fixed 

Local Service Providers include the 

following types of providers: Incumbent 

Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), 

Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) 

and Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, 

Interconnected VoIP Providers, NonInterconnected VoIP Providers, SharedTenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge 

Service Providers, and Other Local 

Service Providers. Local Resellers fall 

into another U.S. Census Bureau 

industry group and therefore data for 

these providers is not included in this 

industry. 

91. The SBA small business size 

standard for Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or 

fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 3,054 firms that operated in this 

industry for the entire year. Of this 

number, 2,964 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 4,590 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of fixed local services. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 4,146 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, most of these 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

92. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. Providers of 

these services include both incumbent 

and competitive local exchange service 

providers. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is the closest industry with an 

SBA small business size standard. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers are 

also referred to as wireline carriers or 

fixed local service providers. Fixed 

Local Exchange Service Providers 

include the following types of 

providers: ILECs, CAPs and CLECs, 

Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VoIP 

Providers, Non-Interconnected VoIP 

Providers, Shared-Tenant Service 

Providers, Audio Bridge Service 

Providers, Local Resellers, and Other 

Local Service Providers. The SBA small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

that operated in this industry for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2022 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 

providers that reported they were fixed 

local exchange service providers. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 4,146 providers have 

1,500 or fewer employees. 

Consequently, using the SBA’s small 

business size standard, most of these 

providers can be considered small 

entities. 

93. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for incumbent 

local exchange carriers. Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers is the 

closest industry with an SBA small 

business size standard. The SBA small 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80634 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers classifies 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees 

as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2017 show that there were 3,054 firms 

in this industry that operated for the 

entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms 

operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2022 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 

providers that reported they were 

incumbent local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 916 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of incumbent local exchange carriers 

can be considered small entities. 

94. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 

nor the SBA has developed a size 

standard for small businesses 

specifically applicable to local exchange 

services. Providers of these services 

include several types of competitive 

local exchange service providers. 

Competitive Local Exchange Service 

Providers include the following types of 

providers: CAPs and CLECs, Cable/Coax 

CLECs, Interconnected VoIP Providers, 

Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers, 

Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio 

Bridge Service Providers, Local 

Resellers, and Other Local Service 

Providers. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is the closest industry with an 

SBA small business size standard. The 

SBA small business size standard for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 

firms that operated in this industry for 

the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 

firms operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2022 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 

providers that reported they were 

competitive local exchange service 

providers. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 3,230 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

95. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). 

Neither the Commission nor the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Interexchange 

Carriers. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers is the closest industry with an 

SBA small business size standard. The 

SBA small business size standard for 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 

employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 

firms that operated in this industry for 

the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 

firms operated with fewer than 250 

employees. Additionally, based on 

Commission data in the 2022 Universal 

Service Monitoring Report, as of 

December 31, 2021, there were 127 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of 

interexchange services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of providers in this industry can be 

considered small entities. 

96. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The SBA size standard for this 

industry classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

there were 2,893 firms in this industry 

that operated for the entire year. Of that 

number, 2,837 firms employed fewer 

than 250 employees. Additionally, 

based on Commission data in the 2022 

Universal Service Monitoring Report, as 

of December 31, 2021, there were 594 

providers that reported they were 

engaged in the provision of wireless 

services. Of these providers, the 

Commission estimates that 511 

providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

97. Local Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Local Resellers. 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest industry with a SBA small 

business size standard. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. Mobile virtual network 

operators (MVNOs) are included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for Telecommunications 

Resellers classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services for the entire year. Of 

that number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 207 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of local resale services. Of 

these providers, the Commission 

estimates that 202 providers have 1,500 

or fewer employees. Consequently, 

using the SBA’s small business size 

standard, most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

98. Toll Resellers. Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA have 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for Toll Resellers. 

Telecommunications Resellers is the 

closest industry with an SBA small 

business size standard. The 

Telecommunications Resellers industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

purchasing access and network capacity 

from owners and operators of 

telecommunications networks and 

reselling wired and wireless 

telecommunications services (except 

satellite) to businesses and households. 

Establishments in this industry resell 

telecommunications; they do not 

operate transmission facilities and 

infrastructure. MVNOs are included in 

this industry. The SBA small business 

size standard for Telecommunications 

Resellers classifies a business as small if 

it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 

1,386 firms in this industry provided 

resale services for the entire year. Of 

that number, 1,375 firms operated with 

fewer than 250 employees. 

Additionally, based on Commission 

data in the 2022 Universal Service 

Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 

2021, there were 457 providers that 

reported they were engaged in the 

provision of toll services. Of these 

providers, the Commission estimates 

that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Consequently, using the 

SBA’s small business size standard, 

most of these providers can be 

considered small entities. 

99. All Other Telecommunications. 

This industry is comprised of 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing specialized 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80635 

telecommunications services, such as 

satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operation. 

This industry also includes 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing satellite terminal stations and 

associated facilities connected with one 

or more terrestrial systems and capable 

of transmitting telecommunications to, 

and receiving telecommunications from, 

satellite systems. Providers of internet 

services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over 

internet protocol (VoIP) services, via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA small business size 

standard for this industry classifies 

firms with annual receipts of $35 

million or less as small. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2017 show that there 

were 1,079 firms in this industry that 

operated for the entire year. Of those 

firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than 

$25 million. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

firms can be considered small. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

100. In the Second Report and Order, 

we adopt new certifications and 

disclosures in our direct access 

application process for all 

interconnected VoIP provider 

applicants. Upon the effective date of 

these rules, we require explicit 

acknowledgment of compliance with all 

robocall regulations; implement 

disclosure and update requirements 

regarding ownership and control; 

require certification of compliance with 

other applicable Commission 

regulations and certain state law; and 

add a declaration requirement to hold 

applicants accountable for the 

truthfulness and accuracy of their direct 

access applications. 

101. Specifically, we require a direct 

access applicant to certify that it will 

use numbering resources lawfully and 

will not knowingly encourage, assist, or 

facilitate illegal robocalls, illegal 

spoofing, or fraud. If the applicant has 

a foreign owner whose interest exceeds 

the reporting threshold set forth in 

§ 63.18(h) of our rules, those 

applications will be placed on a ‘‘nonstreamlined’’ processing track. We 

require applicants for a Commission 

direct access authorization to disclose 

information, including the name, 

address, country of citizenship, and 

principal business of every person or 

entity that directly or indirectly owns at 

least ten percent of the equity and/or 

voting interest, or a controlling interest, 

of the applicant, and the percentage of 

equity and/or voting interest owned by 

each of those entities to the nearest one 

percent, consistent with the 

requirements of international section 

214 applicants. Also consistent with 

section 214, we require an applicant to 

certify whether it is, or is affiliated with, 

a foreign carrier, and cross-reference 

with § 63.18(i) for consistency. A chart 

or narrative describing the applicant’s 

corporate structure is also required for 

interconnected VoIP applicants. 

102. To ensure ownership information 

remains up to date, the Second Report 

and Order revises § 52.15(g)(3) to 

require 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 ownership information 

disclosed in their direct access 

applications. Authorization holders are 

also required to submit updated or 

corrected ownership information to the 

states for which they have acquired or 

requested numbers at the time of the 

ownership change and in the same 

manner the providers would submit a 

correction or update to their original 

applications. We also revise 

§ 52.15(g)(3) to require applicants to 

certify their compliance with the 

Communications Assistance with Law 

Enforcement Act (CALEA), and provide 

evidence in their applications that 

demonstrates their compliance with 

both CALEA and the Commission’s part 

9 public safety rules. A new certification 

cross-references new access arbitrage 

rules, thus revising § 52.15(g)(3) to 

require interconnected VoIP providers 

applying for direct access to numbers to 

certify that they will not use numbering 

resources to evade our access 

stimulation rules. Interconnected VoIP 

providers that must file FCC Forms 477 

and 499 will now provide evidence that 

they have complied with these 

obligations, and any successor filing 

obligations, when filing a direct access 

application. 

103. The Second Report and Order 

further revises § 52.15(g)(3) of our rules 

to require an officer or authorized 

employee representative of the 

applicant to submit a declaration under 

penalty of perjury, pursuant to § 1.16 of 

the rules, attesting that all statements in 

the application and any appendices are 

true and accurate. All updated or 

corrected ownership information shall 

be filed though existing methods such 

as the Electronic Comment Filing 

System (ECFS) through the Direct 

Access intake docket (Inbox 52.15) and 

via email to DAA@fcc.gov, unless the 

Bureau specifies another method. The 

Bureau may request additional 

documentation as necessary, during and 

after its initial review of a direct access 

application. 

104. 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 Second 

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. The 

Commission, however, 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. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

105. 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.’’ 

106. The Second 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. We declined to 

adopt our proposal to require direct 

access authorization holders to certify 

on their applications, or inform the 

Commission if the authorization holder 

is subject to a Commission or other 

regulator or law enforcement 

investigation due to its robocall 

mitigation plan being deemed 

insufficient, or due to suspected 

unlawful robocalling or spoofing, 

because authorization holders are 

already required to do so under the 

Commission’s rules. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80636 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

107. There was not strong record 

support for certain proposals that 

require action of the Office of 

International Affairs (OIA) or the 

Bureau, so we declined to adopt those 

finding that it is more efficient to rely 

on current practices to address these 

concerns. These include automatic 

referral of interconnected VoIP 

providers’ direct access applications to 

the Executive Branch agencies when an 

applicant has reportable foreign 

ownership, and developing a list of 

‘‘Standard Questions’’ for 

interconnected VoIP applicants with 

reportable foreign ownership. We also 

declined to adopt rules to specify the 

documents that will be allowed to 

satisfy the ‘‘facilities readiness’’ 

requirement in the Commission’s 

current rules. Comments on the issue 

were divided and we conclude that 

existing examples of technical 

documentation are sufficient. Further, 

after considering the record, we 

declined to adopt a know-your-customer 

certification proposal at this time. 

108. As discussed above, the new 

certification requirements in the Second 

Report and Order are minimally 

burdensome, as they merely require 

providers to certify that they are 

compliant with preexisting Commission 

rules. Our public safety and CALEA 

documentation submission requirement 

merely formalizes existing Bureau 

practice of requesting such information 

from direct access applicants. 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 have an issue including these 

new certifications and disclosures in 

their direct access authorization 

applications. 

Report to Congress 

109. The Commission will send a 

copy of the Second Report and Order, 

including the FRFA, in a report to be 

sent to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

Second Report and Order, including the 

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52 

Communications common carriers, 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 201–205, 207–209, 218, 225–227, 251– 

252, 271, 303, 332, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 52.15 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.15 Central office code administration. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) Commission authorization 

process. A provider of interconnected 

VoIP service may show a Commission 

authorization obtained pursuant to this 

paragraph (g)(3) as evidence that it is 

authorized to provide service under 

paragraph (g)(2) of this section. 

(i) Definition. The term foreign carrier 

found in this section is given the same 

meaning as in § 63.09(d) of this chapter. 

(ii) Contents of the application for 

interconnected VoIP provider 

numbering authorization. An 

application for authorization must 

reference this section and must contain 

the following: 

(A) The applicant’s name, address, 

and telephone number and contact 

information for personnel qualified to 

address issues relating to regulatory 

requirements, compliance with 

Commission’s rules in this chapter, 911, 

and law enforcement; 

(B) An acknowledgment that the 

authorization granted under this 

paragraph (g)(3) is subject to compliance 

with applicable Commission numbering 

rules in this part; numbering authority 

delegated to the states; and industry 

guidelines and practices regarding 

numbering as applicable to 

telecommunications carriers; 

(C)–(F) [Reserved] 

(G) An acknowledgment that the 

applicant must file requests for numbers 

with the relevant state commission(s) at 

least 30 days before requesting numbers 

from the Numbering Administrators; 

(H) Proof that the applicant is or will 

be capable of providing service within 

sixty (60) days of the numbering 

resources activation date in accordance 

with paragraph (g)(2) of this section; 

(I) [Reserved] 

(J) A certification that the applicant 

complies with its applicable Universal 

Service Fund contribution obligations 

under part 54, subpart H, of this 

chapter, its Telecommunications Relay 

Service contribution obligations under 

§ 64.604(c)(5)(iii) of this chapter, its 

NANP and local number portability 

(LNP) administration contribution 

obligations under §§ 52.17 and 52.32 of 

this chapter, and its obligations to pay 

regulatory fees under § 1.1154 of this 

chapter; 

(K) A certification that the applicant 

possesses the financial, managerial, and 

technical expertise to provide reliable 

service. This certification must include 

the name of applicant’s key 

management and technical personnel, 

such as the Chief Operating Officer and 

the Chief Technology Officer, or 

equivalent, and state that none of the 

identified personnel are being or have 

been investigated by the Commission or 

any law enforcement or regulatory 

agency for failure to comply with any 

law, rule, or order; and 

(L) [Reserved] 

(M) A certification pursuant to 

§§ 1.2001 and 1.2002 of this chapter that 

no party to the application is subject to 

a denial of Federal benefits pursuant to 

section 5301 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act 

of 1988, see 21 U.S.C. 862. 

(N) [Reserved] 

(iii) Filing procedure. An applicant for 

Commission authorization under this 

section must file its application 

electronically through the ‘‘Submit a 

Non-Docketed Filing’’ module of the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS). Each application 

shall be accompanied by the fee 

prescribed in part 1, subpart G, of this 

chapter. 

(iv) Public notice and review period 

for streamlined pleading cycle. Upon 

determination by the Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) that the 

applicant has filed a complete 

application that is appropriate for 

streamlined treatment, the Bureau will 

assign a docket number to the 

application and issue a public notice 

stating that the application has been 

accepted for filing as a streamlined 

application. The applicant must make 

all subsequent filings relating to its 

application in this docket. Parties may 

file comments addressing an application 

for authorization no later than 15 days 

after the Bureau releases a public notice 

stating that the application has been 

accepted for filing, unless the public 

notice specifies a different filing date. 

An application under this section is 

deemed granted by the Commission on 

the 31st day after the Commission 

releases a public notice stating that the 

application has been accepted for filing, 

unless the Bureau notifies the applicant 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 80637 

that the grant will not be automatically 

effective. 

(v) Non-streamlined processing of 

applications. If an application discloses 

that the applicant has reportable 

ownership by a foreign person or entity, 

the Bureau shall remove the application 

from streamlined processing. The 

Bureau may also remove an application 

from streamlined processing at its 

discretion for other reasons. The Bureau 

shall notify the applicant by public 

notice that it is removing the 

application from streamlined 

processing, and shall state the reason for 

the removal. An application may also 

receive non-streamlined processing if: 

(A) An applicant fails to respond 

promptly to Commission inquiries; 

(B) An application is associated with 

a non-routine request for waiver of the 

Commission’s rules in this chapter; 

(C) An application would, on its face, 

violate a Commission rule in this 

chapter or the Communications Act; 

(D) Timely filed comments on the 

application raise public interest 

concerns that require further 

Commission review; or 

(E) The Bureau determines that the 

application requires further analysis to 

determine whether granting the 

application serves the public interest. 

(vi) Additional information. 

Applicants must provide additional 

information requested by the Bureau 

during and after its initial review of a 

direct access application. Failure to 

respond to such a request or other 

official correspondence may result in 

the rejection of the application without 

prejudice. Any additional information 

that the Bureau may require must be 

submitted in the same manner as the 

original application filing, unless the 

Bureau specifies another method. 

(vii) Rejection of applications. The 

Bureau may reject an application by 

announcing the rejection, the reasons 

for the rejection, and whether the 

rejection is with or without prejudice 

via public notice if it determines or has 

a reasonable basis to believe that: 

(A) The applicant cannot satisfy the 

qualification requirements for a 

Commission authorization under this 

paragraph (g)(3); 

(B) The applicant has made a false 

statement or certification to the 

Commission; 

(C) The applicant has engaged in 

behavior contrary to the public interest; 

or 

(D) Granting the application would 

not serve the public interest. 

(viii) Authorization suspension. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau or 

Enforcement Bureau may suspend a 

direct access authorization holder’s 

access to new numbering resources 

under 5 U.S.C. 558(c): 

(A) After either Bureau determines 

that the authorization holder acted 

willfully; or public health, interest, or 

safety requires an immediate 

suspension; or 

(B) After giving the authorization 

holder notice and an opportunity to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

Commission’s rules in this chapter. 

(ix) Authorization revocation. The 

Wireline Competition Bureau or 

Enforcement Bureau shall determine 

appropriate procedures and initiate 

revocation and/or termination 

proceedings and revoke and/or 

terminate an authorization, as required 

by due process and applicable law and 

in light of the relevant facts and 

circumstances, including providing the 

authorization holder with notice and 

opportunity to respond. Either Bureau 

may commence such revocation and/or 

termination proceedings if: 

(A) The authorization holder has 

failed to comply with the Commission’s 

numbering rules in this part. 

(B) The authorization holder no 

longer meets the requirements for a 

Commission authorization under this 

paragraph (g)(3); 

(C) The authorization holder, or 

officer or authorized representative of 

the authorization holder, has made a 

false statement or certification to the 

Commission; or 

(D) Revoking and/or terminating the 

authorization is in the public interest. 

(x) Conditions applicable to all 

interconnected VoIP provider 

numbering authorizations. An 

interconnected VoIP provider 

authorized to request numbering 

resources directly from the Numbering 

Administrators under this section shall: 

(A) Maintain the accuracy of all 

contact information and certifications in 

its application. If any contact 

information or certification is no longer 

accurate, the provider must file a 

correction with the Commission and 

each applicable state within thirty (30) 

days of the change of contact 

information or certification. The 

Commission may use the updated 

information or certification to determine 

whether a change in authorization status 

is warranted; 

(B) Comply with the applicable 

Commission numbering rules in this 

part; numbering authority delegated to 

the states; and industry guidelines and 

practices regarding numbering as 

applicable to telecommunications 

carriers; 

(C) File requests for numbers with the 

relevant state commission(s) at least 

thirty (30) days before requesting 

numbers from the Numbering 

Administrators; and 

(D) Provide accurate regulatory and 

numbering contact information to each 

state commission when requesting 

numbers in that state. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend 

§ 52.15 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(B); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(C) 

through (F) and (I); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(K); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(L); 

■ e. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(M) and adding ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place; 

■ f. Adding paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(N); and 

■ g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and 

(g)(3)(x)(A). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.15 Central office code administration. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(B) An acknowledgment that the 

authorization granted under this 

paragraph (g)(3) is subject to compliance 

with 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; 

(C) A certification that the applicant 

will not use the numbers obtained 

pursuant to an authorization under this 

paragraph (g)(3) to knowingly transmit, 

encourage, assist, or facilitate illegal 

robocalls, illegal spoofing, or fraud, in 

violation of robocall, spoofing, and 

deceptive telemarketing obligations 

under §§ 64.1200, 64.1604, and 64.6300 

through 64.6308 of this chapter and 16 

CFR 310.3(b); 

(D) A certification that the applicant 

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 §§ 64.6301 through 64.6305 

of this chapter; 

(E) A certification with accompanying 

evidence that the applicant complies 

with its 911 obligations under part 9 of 

this chapter, and that it complies with 

the provisions of the Communications 

Assistance with Law Enforcement Act, 

47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. Wireline 

Competition Bureau (Bureau) or other 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
80638 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 222 / Monday, November 20, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Commission staff may request 

additional documentation from the 

applicant to demonstrate compliance 

with these public safety obligations, 

where necessary; 

(F) A certification that the applicant 

complies with the Access Stimulation 

rules under § 51.914 of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

(I) Proof that the applicant has filed 

FCC Forms 477 and 499, or a statement 

explaining why each such form is not 

yet applicable; 

* * * * * 

(K) A certification that the applicant 

possesses the financial, managerial, and 

technical expertise to provide reliable 

service. This certification must include 

the name of applicant’s key 

management and technical personnel, 

such as the Chief Operating Officer and 

the Chief Technology Officer, or 

equivalent, and state that neither the 

applicant nor any of the identified 

personnel are being or have been 

investigated by the Commission, law 

enforcement, or any regulatory agency 

for failure to comply with any law, rule, 

or order, including the Commission’s 

rules in this chapter applicable to 

unlawful robocalls or unlawful 

spoofing; 

(L) The same information, disclosures, 

and certifications required by § 63.18(h) 

and (i) of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

(N) A declaration under penalty of 

perjury pursuant to § 1.16 of this 

chapter that all statements in the 

application and any appendices are true 

and accurate. This declaration shall be 

executed by an officer or other 

authorized representative of the 

applicant. 

* * * * * 

(iv) Public notice and review period 

for streamlined pleading cycle. Upon 

determination by the Bureau that the 

applicant has filed a complete 

application that is appropriate for 

streamlined treatment, the Bureau will 

assign a docket number to the 

application and issue a public notice 

stating that the application has been 

accepted for filing as a streamlined 

application. The applicant must make 

all subsequent filings relating to its 

application in this docket. Parties may 

file comments addressing an application 

for authorization no later than 15 days 

after the Bureau releases a public notice 

stating that the application has been 

accepted for filing, unless the public 

notice specifies a different filing date. 

An application under this section is 

deemed granted by the Commission on 

the 31st day after the Commission 

releases a public notice stating that the 

application has been accepted for filing, 

unless the Bureau notifies the applicant 

that the grant will not be automatically 

effective. 

* * * * * 

(x) * * * 

(A) Maintain the accuracy of all 

contact information, certifications, and 

ownership or affiliation information in 

its application. If any contact 

information, certification, or affiliation 

information submitted in an application 

pursuant to this section, is no longer 

accurate, the provider must file a 

correction with the Commission and 

each applicable state within thirty (30) 

days of the change of contact 

information, certification, or affiliation 

information. Regarding ownership 

information, if the holders of equity 

and/or voting interests in the provider 

change such that a provider that 

previously did not have reportable 

ownership or control information under 

paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(L) of this section 

now has reportable ownership or 

control information, or there is a change 

to the reportable ownership or control 

information the provider previously 

reported under paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(L), 

the provider must file a correction with 

the Commission and each applicable 

state within thirty (30) days of the 

change to its ownership or control 

information. The Commission may use 

the updated contact information, 

certifications, or ownership or affiliation 

information to determine whether a 

change in authorization status is 

warranted; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–24679 Filed 11–17–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 1815 and 1852 

[Notice (23–118)] 

RIN 2700–AE75 

NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Supplement: NASA FAR Supplement— 

NASA Ombudsman Program (NFS 

Case 2023–N022) 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) is issuing 

a final rule amending the NASA Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(NFS) to update the policy concerning 

the NASA Ombudsman Program. 

DATES: Effective December 20, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Becker, telephone 301–286–1296; 

facsimile 202–358–3082. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This final rule amends the NASA FAR 

Supplement(NFS) to update the policy 

concerning the NASA Ombudsman 

Program. 

When awarding a multiple award 

indefinite-quantity contracts, 41 U.S.C. 

4106(g) requires agencies to have a taskand delivery-order ombudsman who 

will be responsible for reviewing 

complaints from contractors and 

ensuring that they are afforded a fair 

opportunity to be considered for the 

award of an order, consistent with the 

procedures in the contract. This 

requirement is implemented at Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

16.505(b)(8). FAR 16.504(a)(4)(v) 

requires the solicitation and contract for 

an indefinite-quantity to include the 

name, address, telephone number, 

facsimile number, and email address of 

the agency’s task and delivery order 

ombudsman, if multiple awards may be 

made. 

To implement the requirement at FAR 

16.504(a)(4)(v), several agencies created 

a contract clause that provides 

contractors with the agency 

ombudsman’s responsibilities and 

contact information. NFS clause 

1852.215–84 Ombudsman, Alternate I, 

provides this information for task and 

delivery order contracts. As several 

agencies use a clause to provide this 

information to contractors, the 

Department of Defense (DOD), General 

Services Administration (GSA), and 

NASA processed a FAR case to 

implement a clause at the FAR level that 

would be available for all agencies to 

use. 

DOD, GSA, and NASA have 

undertaken rulemaking to formally 

incorporate this change. These 

rulemaking changes were published in 

the Federal Register (84 FR 38836) on 

August 7, 2019, FAC 2019–04, and FAR 

Case 2017–020, Ombudsman for 

Indefinite Delivery Contracts, effective 

September 6, 2019. 

This rule does not add any new 

solicitation provisions or contract 

clauses. This rule merely revises the 

policy concerning the NASA 

Ombudsman Program by deleting 

Alternate I and references to the use of 

Alternate I of NFS clause 1852.215–84 

Ombudsman. It does not add any new 

burdens because the case does not add 

or change any requirements with which 

vendors must comply. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1