Numbering Policies for Modern Communications, 80617-80638 [2023-24679]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80617-80638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24679]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 80618]]

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, 
[email protected]. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole 
Ongele, [email protected].

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 [email protected] 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 80620]]

Certifying Compliance With Robocall-Related 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 non-quantifiable losses 
suffered by consumers and the erosion of confidence in the Nation's 
telephone network. The Commission has also found that the potential 
benefits resulting from eliminating the wasted time and nuisances 
caused by illegal scam robocalls would exceed $3 billion annually. The 
Commission receives more complaints about such 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 cross-
references the relevant Commission rules targeting illegal robocalls in 
our new certifications.
    12. Robocall-related certifications. We revise Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 robocall-related 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 post-grant. 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

[[Page 80622]]

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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.18(h) and (i) of the Commission's 
rules. If the applicant does not have information required to be 
provided under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  63.18(h) or (i). For example, the Commission 
adopted changes to Sec.  63.18(h) in 2020. The amendments to Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.18(h) 
pursuant to Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  63.18(h) of the Commission's 
rules, as now incorporated in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 80624]]

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 post-authorization 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 
[email protected], 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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 revenue-
generating 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 Sec.  52.15(g)(3) of the 
Commission's rules to require interconnected VoIP providers that must 
file FCC Forms 477

[[Page 80626]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 consumer-protection 
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

[[Page 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 non-telecommunications 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 Sec.  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.'' Non-fixed 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 fixed-VoIP counterparts do. It would also burden state 
commissions to determine the precise geographic locations of non-fixed 
providers each time a numbering request was received. State commissions 
strongly supported applying the state-law 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

[[Page 80628]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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-
by-case 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 ``Accepted-for-
Filing Public Notice''). Additionally, the Bureau retains the authority 
to determine, at its discretion, whether to accept an application for 
non-streamlined 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 80630]]

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 Commission-imposed 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 80632]]

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 non-toll free telephone numbers, could be modified, including by 
establishing registration and compliance obligations,'' and to ``take 
sufficient steps to know the identity of the customers of such 
providers [of voice services], to help reduce access to numbers by 
potential perpetrators of violations of section 227(b) of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).''
    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 [email protected].

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

[[Page 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 ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    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, Non-Interconnected VoIP Providers, 
Shared-Tenant 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

[[Page 80634]]

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

[[Page 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 Sec.  63.18(h) of our rules, those 
applications will be placed on a ``non-streamlined'' 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
[email protected], 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.

[[Page 80636]]

    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

0
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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  52.15 by revising and republishing paragraph (g)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  64.604(c)(5)(iii) of this chapter, its NANP and 
local number portability (LNP) administration contribution obligations 
under Sec. Sec.  52.17 and 52.32 of this chapter, and its obligations 
to pay regulatory fees under Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 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.
* * * * *

0
3. Delayed indefinitely, further amend Sec.  52.15 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(B);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g)(3)(ii)(C) through (F) and (I);
0
c. Revising paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(K);
0
d. Adding paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(L);
0
e. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(M) and adding 
``; and'' in its place;
0
f. Adding paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(N); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and (g)(3)(x)(A).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 80638]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.18(h) and (i) of this chapter;
* * * * *
    (N) A declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to Sec.  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