[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6608-6612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02858]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket Nos. 13-97, 07-243, 20-67; FCC 25-86; FR ID 330316]
Numbering Policies for Modern Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes 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 proposals aim to safeguard U.S. numbering resources
and consumers, protect national security interests, promote public
safety, and ensure compliance with other important Commission rules.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 16, 2026. Reply Comments are
due on or before April 13, 2026. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be
submitted by the public and other interest parties on or before April
13, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 13-97,
07-243, 20-67, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the Commission's website by accessing the Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers. Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by
the Commission's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bans or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any not send by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS.
Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat.
For additional information on submitting comments and the
rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Send a copy of your comment on the proposed information
collection to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele at
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Reth, Attorney Advisor,
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at
[email protected] or (202) 418-1418. 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 at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos.
13-97, 07-243, 20-67, adopted on December 18, 2025, and released on
December 19, 2025. The complete text of this document is available for
download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-86A1.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 and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
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.''
[[Page 6609]]
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the
proposed rules contained in the Third FNPRM on small entities. The IRFA
is set forth in Appendix C, https://www.fcc.gov/document/wcb-updates-numbering-requirements-providers.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This Third FNPRM may contain proposed new
and revised information collection requirements. The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on the information collection requirements described in this document,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. The Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires
each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a
brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary
of this document will be available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Third FNPRM initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
In this Third FNPRM, we refresh the record on reclaiming numbering
resources that were obtained directly from the Numbering Administrators
by interconnected VoIP providers that subsequently had their
authorizations revoked or terminated. We also seek comment on whether
the Commission should restrict VoIP numbering authorizations or
reevaluate direct access authorizations for entities that appear on the
Commission's Covered List or have ``covered'' equipment in their
networks, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.50002 and the List of Equipment and
Services Covered by section 2 of the Secure and Trusted Communications
Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116-124. Finally, we seek comment on
other restrictions or protections we should consider for VoIP numbering
authorizations or numbering resources.
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
By this Third FNPRM, we seek comment on ways we can continue to
leverage VoIP numbering authorizations and access to numbers in the
fight against illegal robocalling and unacceptable national security
threats.
First, we seek to refresh the record on the feasibility and impacts
of reclaiming numbering resources obtained directly from the Numbering
Administrators by interconnected VoIP providers when the Commission has
revoked or terminated their VoIP numbering authorization or when the
provider is no longer providing services due to bankruptcy or other
critical circumstances. What are the costs and benefits of such action?
Would the disruptions to end-users outweigh the potential benefits?
What are the possible ways to mitigate impacts on end-users and
consumers? We also seek comment on the potential process the Commission
might use to reclaim numbers and on ways to operationally facilitate
numbering resource reclamation, particularly for numbers assigned to
end-users. Would porting numbers to a designated alternative provider
and establishing a numbering partner to maintain service to existing
customers be a viable solution and what would that entail? ``Numbering
partner'' refers to the carrier partner from where an interconnected
VoIP provider obtains numbering resources. Are there alternatives to
number reclamation that would be less disruptive but also provide
adequate safeguards to numbering resources as well as meaningful
enforcement mechanisms? We seek comment on related conclusions in the
NANC's 2024 report, which analyzed similar questions related to number
reclamation pursuant to the Second Report and Order.
We also seek comment on whether the Commission should restrict VoIP
numbering authorizations or reevaluate existing authorizations for
certain entities that may threaten national security, for example,
entities identified on the Commission's Covered List (generally,
entities whose equipment and/or services have been deemed to pose an
unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or to
the security and safety of United States persons, as well as those
entities' affiliates and subsidiaries). As the Commission has
previously explained, ``[e]ntities `identified on the Covered List'
generally includes entities named on the Covered List and such
entities' affiliates and subsidiaries.'' Another example would be
entities who have had their international and/or domestic section 214
authorizations revoked on national security or law enforcement grounds.
Should such entities be denied VoIP numbering authorizations? If we
were to adopt these further restrictions, should we limit the
prohibition to entities whose services, rather than equipment, is
identified on the Covered List, or whose domestic or international
section 214 authority (or that of its affiliate or subsidiary) has been
denied or revoked on national security or law enforcement grounds? As
we recently reiterated, ``communications equipment and services on the
FCC's Covered List have been determined to pose unacceptable risks to
the national security of the United States and its citizens.'' What are
the potential benefits of such a restriction for both reducing illegal
robocalls and strengthening the security of the
[[Page 6610]]
nation's networks? Are there any harms or unintended impacts that would
outweigh the benefits? What are the consequences of this restriction on
providers and consumers?
Lastly, we also seek comment on whether the Commission should
restrict a VoIP numbering authorization or reevaluate an existing
authorization should it discover ``covered'' equipment in the
interconnected VoIP provider's network. What are the potential costs
and benefits of such a proposal? Should there be a time period
considered for reporting ''covered'' equipment in a network before any
potential restrictions on VoIP numbering authorizations take effect?
Should the Commission adopt an additional certification requirement
regarding the use of ''covered'' equipment or services by applicants
and existing authorization holders? Should existing authorization
holders (that is, those granted prior to the effective date of the
contemplated certification requirement) be required to make these
certifications? Should the Commission consider prohibiting providers
with a VoIP numbering authorization from providing service to entities
with ``covered'' equipment in their networks in order to avoid entities
with ``covered'' equipment gaining indirect access to numbering
resources through resale or other arrangements? Are there circumstances
or situations that should be taken into consideration? Would such a
proposal create any unintended consequences? Are there any reporting
and transparency impacts that might outweigh our proposal? Would this
have impacts that are not technology-neutral or disproportionately
impact interconnected VoIP providers and/or small providers? Would
there be any unintended consequences for technology transitions,
implementation of STIR/SHAKEN Caller ID authentications, or other
Commission priorities? Finally, are there other proposals that we
should consider regarding national security protections and direct
access to numbering resources?
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4, 201-
205, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), and section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act, Public Law 116-105, 6(a)(1)-(2), 133 Stat. 3274, 3277
(2019), 47 U.S.C. 227b-1, the Third FNPRM hereby is adopted.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third FNPRM, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for the Small
Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and
rules proposed in the Third FNPRM assessing the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the Third FNPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the Third FNPRM, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Office of Advocacy. In addition, the Third FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the Third FNPRM, the Commission continues to strengthen our
direct access rules to protect consumers and our nation's communication
networks from bad actors that would misuse our finite numbering
resources. As bad actors continue to seek new and creative methods for
exploiting consumers and causing harm, we must think outside of the box
to bolster our safeguards against those who engage in illegal
robocalling, fraud, and abuse. We seek comment on ways we can continue
to leverage the VoIP numbering authorization and access to numbers in
the fight against illegal robocalling and unacceptable national
security threats. Specifically, we first refresh the record as to
whether the Commission should reclaim numbering resources obtained
directly from the Numbering Administrators by interconnected VoIP
providers whose VoIP numbering authorizations were subsequently revoked
or terminated. We also seek comment on prohibiting entities identified
on the Covered List (i.e. named entities and their affiliates and
subsidiaries) from obtaining a VoIP numbering authorization.
Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should extend this
prohibition to third party entities that supply, receive services from,
carry traffic for, or interconnect with entities identified on the
Covered List. Moreover, we seek comment on whether we should limit the
prohibition to entities identified on the Covered List whose
international section 214 authority (or that of its affiliate or
subsidiary) was denied or revoked on national security grounds. The
Commission recently reiterated, ``communications equipment and services
on the FCC's Covered List have been determined to pose unacceptable
risks to the national security of the United States and its citizens.''
We also request comment on the potential benefits of such a restriction
for both reducing illegal robocalls and security of the nation's
networks. Additionally, we seek comment on the harms or unintended
impacts of such a restriction, and whether they would outweigh the
benefits. Further, we seek comment on the consequences of such a
restriction on providers and consumers.
The Commission seeks comment on whether to restrict a VoIP
numbering authorization or reevaluate an existing authorization if
``covered'' equipment is discovered in the interconnected VoIP
provider's network. We request comment on the potential costs and
benefits and whether there should be a time period for reporting
Covered List equipment in a network before any potential restrictions
on VoIP numbering authorizations take effect. Additionally, the
Commission seeks comment on adopting an additional certification
requirement regarding the use of Covered List equipment or services by
applicants for the VoIP numbering authorization and if there are
circumstances or situations that should be taken into consideration.
Moreover, we seek comment on any unintended consequences, reporting and
transparency impacts, and impacts that are not technology-neutral or
disproportionate for interconnected VoIP providers and/or small
providers. Further, we seek comment on any unintended consequences for
technology transitions, implementation of STIR/SHAKEN Caller ID
authentications, or other Commission priorities. Finally, we request
comment on any other proposals that we should consider regarding
national security protections and direct access to numbering resources.
Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 3, 4,
201-205, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, 251, 303(r), and section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act, Public Law 116-105, section 6(a)(1)-(2), 133 Stat. 3274,
3277 (2019), 47 U.S.C. 227b-1.
[[Page 6611]]
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act (SBA). A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies
are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small
businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use
in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before
doing so.
Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups
of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In
general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all
businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million
businesses. Next, ``small organizations'' are not-for-profit
enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant
their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
The rules proposed in the Third FNPRM will apply to small entities
in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and
corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S.
Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each
identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a
substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide
additional information regarding the number of potentially affected
entities in the industries identified below.
Table 1--2022 U.S. Census Bureau Data by NAICS Code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulated industry (footnotes
specify potentially affected Total small % small
entities within a regulated NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms firms firms
industry where applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications 517111 1,500 employees............. 3,403 3,027 88.95
Carriers.
Wireless Telecommunications 517112 1,500 employees............. 1,184 1,081 91.30
Carriers (except Satellite).
Telecommunications Resellers.. 517121 1,500 employees............. 955 847 88.69
Satellite Telecommunications.. 517410 $44 million................. 332 195 58.73
All Other Telecommunications.. 517810 $40 million................. 1,673 1,007 60.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Telecommunications Service Provider Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2024 Universal service monitoring report telecommunications SBA size standard (1,500 employees)
service provider data (data as of December 2023) -----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------- Total # FCC
Form 499A Small firms % Small
Affected entity filers entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable/Coax CLEC................................................. 67 62 92.54
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs)..................... 3,729 3,576 95.90
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).............. 1,175 917 78.04
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs)................................... 113 95 84.07
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).................................. 4,904 4,493 91.62
Local Resellers................................................. 222 217 97.75
Other Toll Carriers............................................. 74 71 95.95
Prepaid Card Providers.......................................... 47 47 100.00
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of
proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate
of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
In the Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposals that,
if adopted, will affect all interconnected VoIP providers seeking a
VoIP numbering authorization with the Commission, including those that
may be small entities. Specifically, in the Third FNPRM, we seek
comment on proposals to impose additional certifications requirements
with respect to Covered List entities or covered equipment in networks
for applicants and existing authorization holders. As detailed in
section A, these include prohibiting entities identified on the Covered
List from obtaining a VoIP numbering authorization, and whether we
should extend this prohibition to third party entities that supply,
receive
[[Page 6612]]
services from, carry traffic for, or interconnect with entities
identified on the Covered List. These proposals may create new or
additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or other compliance
obligations on small entities, if adopted. We anticipate the
information we receive in comments including, where requested, cost and
benefit analyses, will help the Commission further identify and
evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities, including
compliance costs such as whether small entities will have to hire
professionals, and other burdens that may result from the inquiries we
make in the Third FNPRM.
Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
In the Third FNPRM, the Commission continues to strengthen our
direct access rules to protect consumers and our nation's communication
networks from bad actors that would misuse our finite numbering
resources, including for illegal robocalling or unacceptable national
security threats. While doing so, the Commission seeks comment on a
number of proposals related to the VoIP numbering authorization and
prohibiting direct access to numbering resources for entities on the
Covered List or those that have covered equipment in their
interconnected VoIP service networks. These include alternatives to
revoking VoIP authorization that may mitigate disruption to end-users
and consumers, including porting numbers to a designated alternative
provider and establishing a numbering partner to maintain service to
existing customers.
In evaluating the proposals in the Third FNPRM, the Commission will
fully consider the economic impact on small entities as it evaluates
the comments filed, including comments related to costs and benefits.
Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters will further
develop the record and could help the Commission further minimize the
economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the
comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it
reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it
ultimately takes to minimize any significant economic impact that may
occur on small entities from the final rules.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
13. None.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2026-02858 Filed 2-11-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P