[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25312-25325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09134]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 52
[WC Docket Nos. 26-49, 20-67, 13-97, 07-243; FCC 26-17; FR ID 344564]
Combatting Illegal Robocalls Through FCC Numbering Policies;
Implementation of TRACED Act--Knowledge of Customers by Entities With
Access to Numbering Resources
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC
or Commission) seeks comment on whether to adopt changes to its
numbering policies with respect to how assigned numbering resources are
utilized, reported, and resold by service providers as part of its
continuing effort to combat illegal robocalls. The Commission explores
and proposes a broad array of solutions to strengthen the Commission's
numbering requirements and policies, particularly as they relate to
resellers that use numbering resources to engage in some of the most
extensive illegal robocalling schemes.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 8, 2026. Reply Comments are
due on or before July 7, 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 July 7,
2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 26-49,
20-67, 13-97, 07-243, 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.
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.
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.
Commercial courier deliveries (any not send by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
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: Raphael Sznajder or Ed Krachmer, FCC
Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division at
[email protected] or [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 at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 26-49, 20-67, 13-97,
07-243; FCC 26-17, adopted on March 26, 2026, and released on March 27,
2026. The complete text of this document is available for download at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-17A1.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
[[Page 25313]]
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning
the possible impact of the proposed rules contained in the NPRM on
small entities. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-26-17A1.pdf.
Paperwork Reduction Act. This NPRM 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 NPRM 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
The FCC initiates this proceeding to evaluate whether we should
adopt changes to our telephone numbering policies, particularly in how
assigned numbers are used by service providers, to further combat
illegal robocalls originating from those numbers. Although wireline,
wireless, and interconnected VoIP service providers may receive
numbering resources directly from the North American Numbering Plan
Administrator (NANPA), distribution of numbers is broader because, in
some instances, it involves multiple levels of resellers that
indirectly access numbering resources. This wide and indirect
distribution of numbering resources also partly enables the robocall
ecosystem. We explore a broad array of solutions to strengthen our
numbering requirements and policies, especially as related to resellers
because some of the most extensive illegal robocalling schemes often
involve resellers. Specifically, this item considers expanding certain
interconnected VoIP direct access certification and disclosure
obligations to all service providers accessing numbering resources
directly from the NANPA and also to those reselling voice service that
includes the provisioning of one or more telephone numbers (the resale
of telephone numbers). We explore implementing enhanced reporting and
tracking of the use of numbering resources by resellers of telephone
numbers as a way to prevent them from enabling robocalls and from
obstructing robocall enforcement. We also propose and seek comment on
other changes to our numbering administration policies for all
providers that may aid in our efforts to combat robocalls. We propose
these actions pursuant to the Commission's broad numbering
administration authority under the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Act), and in furtherance of our work implementing Section
6(a) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement
and Deterrence (TRACED) Act.
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Expanding Certification and Disclosure Requirements Beyond Service
Providers With Direct Access Authorizations
1. In the Third VoIP Direct Access Report and Order (91 FR 7153),
we observed that previously adopted certification and information
disclosures for interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP)
direct access applicants (of which the robocall certifications are
part) ``have provided much needed transparency and enhanced the
Commission's enforcement mechanisms against potential bad actors
seeking to exploit numbering resources and the authorization process.''
We reasoned that extending these obligations to preexisting direct
access authorization holders and then-pending applicants ``ensure[s]
that our ongoing actions targeting illegal robocalling and spoofing, as
well as safeguards for national security and public safety, have a
greater impact and are consistently applied.''
2. For the same reasons, we now propose to further extend the
robocall certification requirements to all service providers that
receive numbering resources directly from the North American Numbering
Plan Administrator (NANPA), not just interconnected VoIP providers, and
also to resellers of telephone numbers. These certification
requirements should apply uniformly and not just to interconnected VoIP
providers with direct access authorizations, just as many of our
robocall rules themselves apply equally to all voice service providers.
Further, given the role that at least some resellers of telephone
numbers have played in enabling robocalling, it is likely necessary to
apply the certification requirements to resellers as well, thereby
closing a transparency gap in the numbering ecosystem.
3. We propose to level the regulatory playing field so that all
entities obtaining numbering resources directly from the NANPA, and
resellers of telephone numbers, must abide by certain certifications
currently required of interconnected VoIP direct access applicants,
comprehensively applying robocall-related certifications to the full
[[Page 25314]]
spectrum of service providers obtaining and using numbering resources.
We propose to define resellers of telephone numbers as all local
exchange carriers (LECs), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS)
providers, and interconnected VoIP providers reselling or seeking to
resell services that include the provisioning of geographic numbering
resources other than pseudo-ANI. We propose to exclude providers of
Video Relay Service (VRS) and internet Protocol Relay Service (IP
Relay)--two forms of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), that
receive numbering resources indirectly--to the extent that any such TRS
providers could be considered LECs or interconnected VoIP providers.
(TRS are not within a specific category of defined communications
services, rather they are referred to as telephone transmission
services, and defined by function.) Use of numbering resources for TRS
purposes are closely overseen, with numbers assigned to registered
users in the United States, whose identities are verified. The numbers
must be entered into the TRS Numbering Directory, and payments to TRS
providers are conditional on providers reporting the use of those
numbering resources for review by the TRS Fund administrator.
4. Specifically, we propose to extend the robocall-related
certification obligations in Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(ii)(C) and (D), to all
service providers directly receiving numbering resources from the
NANPA, as well as to resellers of telephone numbers, as a one-time
obligation, regardless of the means by which they deliver service or
the underlying regulatory regime in which they may be authorized to
provide service. (By definition, this would, among others, include
service providers that have received waivers of the requirement in
Sec. 52.15(g)(2) that an applicant for numbering resources is
authorized to provide service in the area for which the numbering
resources are requested.) Current service providers receiving numbering
resources directly from the NANPA, and resellers of telephone numbers
operating as of the effective date of any requirement we propose to
adopt in this regard, would be required to file these certifications
within 30 days of the effective date of the new rule. Service providers
intending to obtain numbering resources for the first time from the
NANPA, as well as resellers of telephone numbers intending to become
operational, would be required to file certifications at least 30 days
prior to submitting their first request for numbering resources to the
NANPA or to beginning to resell service, respectively. We propose to
apply these requirements on the basis of individual Operating Company
Numbers (OCNs) for service providers obtaining numbering resources from
the NANPA and on the basis of FCC Form 499 Filer IDs for resellers of
telephone numbers. (An Operating Company Number (OCN) is a four-
character code used to identify telecommunications service providers
and is the basis on which numbering resources are assigned. See ATIS,
Industry Numbering Committee, Thousands-Block and Central Office Code
Administration Guidelines (2025-09), (INC TBACOCAG Guidelines), ATIS
0300119, at 177 (Sept. 26, 2025), https://access.atis.org/higherlogic/ws/public/document?document_id=84025. The National Exchange Carrier
Association assigns all OCNs.) Certifications would be filed in a
newly-created intake docket in the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) similar to that used for the certifications
required by the Direct Access Third Report and Order. Service providers
would also have to submit copies of their certification filings to the
NANPA along with already-required qualification information, such as
proof of authorization, when requesting initial numbering resources.
5. We seek comment on this proposal. Do commenters agree that
robocall certification obligations should be extended as we propose? Is
the proposed scope of service providers potentially subject to these
obligations appropriate? Specifically with respect to TRS providers, is
it necessary to require the direct access robocall certifications? Is
there a better approach concerning these providers and robocall-related
certification requirements? More generally, is there any reason to
distinguish robocall certification obligations between different types
of service providers? (Specifically with respect to resellers of
telephone numbers, state commissions have observed a pattern of holders
of Commission-issued interconnected VoIP direct authorizations losing
their access to new numbering resources by failing to comply with state
law, and then nonetheless continuing to obtain numbering resources
indirectly through wholesale providers. National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissions, Perspectives and Recommendations on How
Telephone Number Conservation Can be Enhanced to Extend the Life of the
North American Number Plan (NANP) and Reduce Illegal Robocalling
Activity at 11 (adopted Feb. 11, 2026) https://pubs.naruc.org/pub/0CFAB9E5-CC00-D558-D278-2CBA85370EB1. If accurate, this would seem to
indicate potential use of the wholesale market to circumvent legal and
regulatory compliance obligations. As such, this suggests the need to
extend certain compliance obligations to resellers of telephone
numbers.) Should the new certification obligations only be one-time and
filed by the method proposed? Would the certification process be overly
burdensome? If commenters believe so, they should state with
specificity why, and provide cost and time estimates. We also seek
comment on our definition of reseller of telephone numbers. Is it
sufficiently broad, or perhaps overly broad? Is there greater clarity
that we should provide regarding when an entity is an end user and when
it is not? In commenting on the definition of reseller of telephone
numbers and as a general matter, we request that commenters provide
whatever information they deem useful in describing the mechanics of
how numbering resale works. In addition, we seek comment on whether
wholesale providers should be responsible for ensuring that resellers
of their telephone numbers have submitted certifications and whether
the failure of any of their resellers to do so should be grounds for
suspension of a wholesale provider's right to obtain further numbering
resources. (Such resellers could be identified on the wholesale
provider's Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) form.)
6. We acknowledge that Sec. 52.15(g)(3)(ii) of our rules requires
interconnected VoIP applicants for direct access authorizations to
certify compliance with obligations and information disclosure
requirements that are unrelated to robocalls. These are not included in
our proposal, with two exceptions--a foreign ownership certification
and a general procedural requirement addressing truthful certifications
as described below. Those other certifications required of
interconnected VoIP providers that we omit from our proposal largely
fill potential compliance gaps unique to the regulatory status of
interconnected VoIP providers, and do not seem relevant to LECs, CMRS
providers, and resellers of telephone numbers.
7. At the same time, we are also mindful of the risks of foreign
adversaries engaging in widespread and coordinated efforts to exploit,
attack, and otherwise compromise the integrity of U.S. communications
networks--risks that the Commission has been working diligently to
address. Because of the importance of our foreign ownership rules and
their evolving
[[Page 25315]]
nature, including as safeguards against illegal robocalls, we propose
to require all service providers that receive numbering resources
directly from the NANPA, as well as resellers of telephone numbers, to
certify compliance with our foreign ownership reporting rules as
applicable, specifically Sec. Sec. 1.80003(a), (j), and (l), 22.5,
24.404(b), 63.18(h) and (i), and 90.115. Under this proposal, these new
obligations would also apply to current and future holders of
Commission interconnected VoIP direct access authorizations. Holders of
such authorizations as of the effective date of any foreign ownership
certification requirement would have 30 days to comply.
8. Do commenters agree that we should omit the other non-robocall-
related obligations and information disclosure requirements in Sec.
52.15(g)(3)(ii) from those which we would be requiring on an expanded
basis? If not, which certifications do commenters suggest we include
and why? For example, do commenters believe that we should include
52.15(g)(3)(ii)(I) (relating to filing FCC Forms 477 and 499) or
52.15(g)(3)(ii)(J) (relating to Universal Service Fund,
Telecommunications Relay Service and NANP and local number portability
administration contribution obligations)? Do commenters support adding
a certification regarding foreign ownership in addition to those
already required? If not, why not? Should the list of rules referenced
in the proposed certification be expanded or contracted?
9. Finally, if we adopt any new certification obligations, we
propose that they also include the declaration required in Sec.
52.15(g)(3)(ii)(N), that, as pertinent here, the certifications are
true ``under penalty of perjury pursuant to Sec. 1.16'' of the
Commission's rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
10. Do commenters agree with our proposed method of implementation?
Specifically, is 30 days sufficient time to comply with these new
obligations for current providers of record of numbering resources? For
service providers that would obtain numbering resources for the first
time, or resellers of telephone numbers initiating their businesses, is
providing the certification at least 30 days prior to requesting
numbering resources overly burdensome? We invite commenters to propose
alternatives. In addition, we seek comment on whether we should
establish a later implementation deadline for current providers of
record that are small entities and, if so, what it should be and how we
should define small entities for such purposes.
B. Preventing Resale Practices From Obstructing Robocall Enforcement
1. Enhancing Wholesale Reporting Requirements
11. In this section, we seek comment on new tools for the
Commission, state regulators, and the NANPA to better track numbering
resource utilization, enhancing the ability to measure numbering
resource exhaust, and misuse, including robocalls. In particular, we
seek comment on modifying the existing NRUF report form (FCC Form 502)
reporting requirements to better support mitigation and enforcement
efforts against illegal robocalls, as well as to inform numbering
administration and policy development.
12. Current NRUF Reporting Obligations. The NANPA, Commission, and
state regulators use NRUF reports to track and analyze numbering
resource utilization and exhaust for purposes of area code and other
planning, and are increasingly using that data to target numbering
resource misuse including robocall campaigns. The North American
Numbering Council (NANC) accurately observed that ``[t]his reporting
enables NANPA and regulators to maintain accurate records of number
utilization and anticipate future needs, while assessing trends,
therefore ensuring that numbering resources are efficiently allocated
and preventing the exhaustion of available numbers.''
13. The Commission's numbering rules require telecommunications
carriers, which includes interconnected VoIP providers for purposes of
Part 52 of the Commission's rules, to submit numbering resource
utilization and forecast data to the NANPA twice per year. Those
reporting must do this by submitting a completed NRUF form. For each
block of numbers obtained, the reporting provider must submit
utilization data in five mutually exclusive categories: administrative,
aging, assigned, intermediate, and reserved. Intermediate numbers are
most relevant to this proceeding because they relate to reselling
relationships and potentially can provide information about the chain
of custody of specific numbers and overall usage patterns. Under our
current rules, intermediate numbers are defined as ``numbers that are
made available for use by another telecommunications carrier or non-
carrier entity for the purpose of providing telecommunications service
to an end user or customer.'' This is in contrast to assigned numbers,
which are numbers that ``ha[ve] been assigned to a specific end-user or
customer.'' The Commission has made clear that, at least until the
pertinent number has been assigned to an end user or is ported,
``numbers provided to carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, or other
non-carrier entities by numbering partners should be reported as
`intermediate,' and do not qualify as `end users' or `customers.'''
14. Under our rules, during the period in which a number is
reported as intermediate by the provider of record, the receiving
party, if it is itself a reporting provider, is required to report the
number on its NRUF form, categorizing such number in the same manner as
with any other numbers in its inventory. Thus, a reporting provider
that is receiving the intermediate number would report the number
according to how it is utilizing it, in one of the five categories
depending on the circumstances--administrative, aging, assigned,
reserved, or intermediate. On the other hand, intermediate numbers
received by an entity that is not a reporting provider need only be
reported by the reporting provider providing those numbers to such
entity (reporting them as intermediate numbers).
15. Industry guidelines detail additional information that
reporting providers must include when reporting intermediate numbers,
stating that the reporting provider ``shall provide the name and
contact information to the NANPA of the telecommunications carriers
that have received the Intermediate numbers.'' Specifically, the NRUF
form instructions state that a provider reporting provision of
intermediate numbers should ``enter the name of the entity to which
[it] gave numbers'' in the Notes/Assignee field, and the provider
reporting the receipt of the intermediate numbers should ``enter the
name of the entity from which [it] received numbers.''
16. The NANC and state commissions have raised several concerns
regarding NRUF reporting compliance, particularly regarding
intermediate numbers. They assert that lack of compliance with the
Commission's NRUF reporting rules makes it difficult or impossible to
know how numbering resources are ultimately being used, or to calculate
exhaust, and, ``contribute to the limited visibility into the full
scale of number utilization in the secondary market.'' These problems
are magnified where ``the wholesale of telephone numbers may be layers
deep.''
17. These parties claim that many reporting providers are not
following their intermediate number reporting obligations for several
reasons potentially extending beyond what
[[Page 25316]]
might be characterized as deliberate non-compliance, including: (1) not
understanding their reporting obligations or interpreting those
obligations differently; (2) an inability to know how their numbering
resources are being used by the downstream entity; or (3) internal
company organization and provisioning systems that may conflict with
the way NRUF reports are structured. NARUC claims that many service
providers receiving intermediate numbers often do not comply with their
obligation to file and, even when they do, do not provide the names and
contact information of the service providers providing the numbers, in
some cases claiming to state commission staff that privacy and legal
concerns make them ``reluctant'' to provide this information (and
sometimes completely refusing to do so). Further, NARUC argues that
state commission staff have observed a ``lack of consistency and
adequacy in the completion of the `Notes/Assignee' field [in FCC Form
502].'' We seek comment on these assertions, any other patterns of NRUF
non-compliance, and the effect non-compliance may have on the
underlying goals of reporting to track numbering resource utilization
and the right to use numbering resources.
18. Improving NRUF Form Data. We seek comment on ways in which our
collection of data through NRUF reports can be improved to aid
detection of, and enforcement efforts against, illegal robocalls, as
well as to inform numbering administration and policy development. In
addition, we seek comment on ways that FCC Form 502 can be improved,
generally, including aspects of the form (and related rules) that may
impose significant costs upon private parties that are not outweighed
by public benefits. The communications marketplace has substantially
evolved since the five mandatory numbering resource use reporting
categories were established roughly 26 years ago, at the dawn of
thousands-block numbering resource assignment and long-term local
number portability solutions, and well before the development of
interconnected VoIP service and the proliferation of resale. Therefore,
the intermediate number category is likely not adequately serving
current needs for many of the reasons that the NANC and state
commissions have identified.
19. We propose to create a revamped set of obligations regarding
intermediate numbers, superseding all previous rules, orders, and
documents regarding these obligations, including FCC Form 502 and its
instructions. Specifically, we propose to split the current
intermediate number category into three subcategories--intermediate
assigned, intermediate other, and intermediate available--to clearly
describe the status of the numbers from the perspectives of both the
provider of record (the provider that directly holds the numbering
resources in the NANPA system) and the service provider reselling those
telephone numbers (categorizing its numbering resources as if it had
received them directly) when the provider of record provides its NRUF
data.
20. As a foundational matter, we propose to retain a definition of
intermediate numbers, generally, that refers to numbers that the
provider of record has made available to resellers of their telephone
numbers for the purpose of provisioning to such resellers' end users
(including enterprise customers), regardless of whether the numbers are
made available on a just-in-time (as needed/ordered by the end users)
basis or allocated to the reseller of telephone numbers as inventory
for the latter's exclusive use. (Our proposed rule uses the shorter
term ``reseller'' rather than ``reseller of telephone numbers,''
although it reflects this proposed definition.) This definition
continues to apply to such numbers until they are no longer being
provided by the provider of record to the reseller.
Intermediate assigned numbers are numbers that are
intermediate numbers and, from the perspective of the reseller,
assigned numbers.
Intermediate other numbers are numbers that are
intermediate numbers and, from the perspective of the reseller, either
administrative numbers, aging numbers, intermediate numbers used for
further resale, or reserved numbers.
Intermediate available numbers are intermediate numbers
that, from the perspective of the reseller, are available numbers. This
category would not need be to reported, just as providers are not
required to report available numbers--intermediate available numbers
would be a residual subcategory, that could be derived mathematically
from the other subcategories within intermediate numbers.
21. We propose that the provider of record bear the burden of
determining the status of its intermediate numbers by obtaining any
necessary information from the service providers reselling its numbers.
Providers of record are presumptively fully capable of updating their
wholesale contracts to require their receipt of such information from
their resellers--particularly on the mere biannual basis that NRUF
reporting requires. If providers of record are unable or unwilling to
fulfill this requirement, it suggests they may not have sufficient
knowledge of their resellers. In such cases, we propose treating their
NRUF forms as deficient. We also propose to codify the obligation for
reporting providers to identify their resellers (if any) on FCC Form
502 and provide meaningful contact information for such customers.
22. Specifically, we propose to modify FCC Form 502 to create
clearly labeled entries for the name and contact information for each
reseller which would include the reseller's FCC Form 499 Filer ID and,
if available, OCN. We seek comment on the extent to which it is
feasible to create a method by which information could be clearly
provided when multiple resellers receive numbers in a particular block,
such as a means by which individual ranges of numbers within a block
could be indicated. We propose to use the same definition of reseller
of telephone numbers for the purpose of NRUF reporting as we propose
for expanding the certification obligations discussed in Section III,
above. Is this definition appropriate for NRUF purposes? Is our
presumption correct that providers of record are fully capable of
updating their wholesale contracts to require provision of such
information from their resellers on a biannual basis?
23. Creating three intermediate number subcategories should serve
to significantly reduce the potential for confusion and omissions in
NRUF reporting of numbering resources provided to resellers, as
identified by the NANC and state commissions. Do commenters agree?
These differentiated categories should also serve to present useful
information to the NANPA and for enforcement efforts and policymaking.
Do commenters agree? What suggestions, if any, do commenters have for
how this proposal could be improved?
24. Should we adopt additional mandatory reporting subcategories to
better track the ways in which numbers are being used? For example,
should we adopt a specific subcategory to report numbers offered for a
trial period or for numbers used for cycling to ensure that their use
is adequately tracked? If so, how should such a subcategory be defined?
Should we require providers to file reports on some or all of the
subcategories of numbers on which providers currently must only keep
internal reports? Should we adopt other reporting subcategories?
25. As part of proposing these new subcategories, we also propose
to update the method of calculating the numbering resource utilization
level used to determine whether a service provider has met the required
75%
[[Page 25317]]
utilization threshold for its existing inventory, that allows it to
request additional numbering resources in a geographic area. Today, the
75% threshold only includes assigned numbers. We seek comment on
whether intermediate assigned numbers should also be included in
calculating utilization levels.
26. How do commenters suggest that the Commission ensure the NANPA
receives information about numbers provided to resellers? Should such
resellers be required to identify themselves as resellers and, if so,
should they be required to identify the source of particular numbers?
Do commenters agree that providers of record should bear the burden of
collecting information from their resellers? Are there any facts of
which we should be aware regarding particular reseller relationships,
such as facilities-based wireless providers with mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs), for which we should account in any reporting
requirements we adopt? (Regulatory fees for CMRS providers have
traditionally been based on the quantity of numbers reported as
assigned numbers.)
27. Further, we seek comment on whether resellers, regardless of
whether they already obtain other numbering resources directly from the
NANPA, should be required to file their own NRUF reports. Should all
resellers of telephone numbers be required to categorize numbers they
resell as intermediate numbers (by the proposed three intermediate
number subcategories), just as providers of record report such numbers,
regardless of if and how they currently report them? If the NRUF form
were adequately revised, it may be possible to cross-check how
reporting providers and resellers are reporting the same telephone
numbers. This ability to cross-check may have benefits in measuring and
increasing the accuracy of usage statistics, enhancing numbering
management, and enabling and supporting enforcement actions against
those who abuse numbering resources. Do commenters agree with these
potential benefits? We acknowledge that our rules envision recipients
of intermediate numbers to include ``non-carrier entities,'' such as
retail dealers and unified messaging providers. If we were to require
resellers of telephone numbers to file NRUF reports, should non-carrier
entities be included? Does our jurisdiction under Section 251(e)(1)
extend to such entities? Would it be more efficient for the Commission
to focus its scrutiny and enforcement efforts on LECs, CMRS providers,
and interconnected VoIP providers, holding such entities responsible
for knowing their customers and gathering adequate data from such
customers, rather than to also require non-carrier entities to file
NRUF reports?
28. Are there other changes that we should make to NRUF reporting
requirements? Is the current reporting cycle of every six months an
appropriate interval? Are there additional steps we should take to
ensure the veracity and accuracy of NRUF reporting that might also
later serve as the basis for numbering audits? Should we create an
expedited method by which the NANPA, at the direction of the Wireline
Competition Bureau (Bureau), may obtain supporting information for a
service provider's usage forecasts? The NANPA, Commission staff, and
state commissions have experienced difficulty contacting service
providers that only provide one point of contact in the NANPA system.
Should all service providers be required to provide a backup point of
contact? Currently, the NANPA has the authority to withhold additional
numbering resources from service providers that fail to file NRUF
reports. The NANPA would not, however, have this remedy available for
resellers that fail to file NRUF reports, but do not directly obtain
numbering resources. We invite commenters to suggest appropriate
remedies. For example, if a reseller of telephone numbers fails to file
NRUF reports, would it be reasonable for the NANPA to withhold
additional numbering resources from any affiliates under common
ownership or control with such reseller that receive numbers directly
from the NANPA? Should the service provider supplying the numbering
resources to the reseller have additional numbering resources withheld?
29. Finally, we note that the local number portability databases
(comprising the National Portability Administration Center or NPAC)
enable a parallel reporting scheme for resellers of telephone numbers
in which the current service provider for a ported number can enter an
identification code for resellers of their service, such as MVNOs.
Reporting this code in the ALTSPID data field is currently optional. As
part of our proposals to increase visibility into resale relationships,
we propose to take the related action of directing the Local Number
Portability Administrator to make entries in the ALTSPID field
mandatory when a reseller relationship exists for the ported number.
Especially with resale now increasingly prevalent, it is important that
the Commission be able to determine the manner in which service is
provisioned on ported numbers when porting difficulty arises. For
example, we are increasingly concerned about scenarios in which an
interconnected VoIP reseller fails to pay its wholesale supplier of
numbers and the reseller suddenly goes out of business, leaving its
retail customers without the usual means of porting their telephone
numbers elsewhere, and we seek to use any means at our disposal to aid
these consumers. Not only do interconnected VoIP providers reselling
the service of numbering partners or other interconnected VoIP
providers have obligations to facilitate ports, but so do the
facilities-based providers through which they get the numbers.
30. We recognize that our NRUF reporting proposals, if adopted,
would not exist in a vacuum. Industry guidelines and procedures would
need to be adapted, as would NANPA systems. In light of this, we
propose that any changes or clarifications of reporting that we adopt
would apply to the first NRUF reporting period starting at least 12
months after the effective date of the order promulgating these rules.
(Thus, for example, if the pertinent order were to become effective
March 26, 2027, numbers the new categories would apply to the NRUF
reporting period of July 1, 2028 through December 31, 2028, for which
NRUF reports would be due February 1, 2029.) This will ensure 12 full
months of guideline and system development by the NANPA before
reporting providers would begin using the new definitions in their
systems. We seek comment on this proposed implementation timeline and,
in addition, we seek comment on whether we should establish a later
implementation deadline for current providers of record that are small
entities and, if so, what it should be and how we should define small
entities for such purposes.
31. We invite commenters to propose alternatives and other
improvements to NRUF reporting requirements. Are there better means of
tracking the chain of custody of numbering resources, such as, perhaps,
new databases that could be established (perhaps using distributed
ledger technology such as blockchain) or changes that could be made to
existing databases to improve this? If so, we seek information on these
alternatives and other improvements, including the cost of such options
and how long they would take to implement. Are there industry efforts
already underway that could be useful in this regard? If so, what are
they and what is the expected timeline and cost for their development
and implementation?
[[Page 25318]]
32. Finally, in addition to the proposals and matters on which we
seek comment described above, we also propose to make housekeeping
edits within Sec. 52.15 of the Commission's rules. These include
correcting the definition of the utilization threshold to cross-
reference the current location of the definition of how utilization is
to be calculated, removing references to events that have already
passed, and changing outdated references to the Common Carrier Bureau
to reference the Bureau. We seek comment on these proposed edits as
well.
2. Limiting Resale of Numbering Resources to a ``Single Level''
33. Numbering resale makes illegal robocall enforcement more
difficult because it can mask the parties in interest, as well as the
parties with relevant data. This problem is magnified when there are
multiple levels of resale. We are also concerned that the more remote
the party providing the number to the end user is from the full set of
requirements imposed on service providers directly drawing numbering
resources, the worse steward it will be of such resources. The former
NANC had observed the challenges posed by multiple levels of resale in
observing that ``[e]ach layer of resale introduces additional
challenges to visibility regarding where multiple providers are in the
use of numbers, as secondary providers may not always be required to
provide detailed reporting on numbers associated with the wholesale
services purchased from upstream providers.''
34. Robocall enforcement actions have often involved multiple
layers of resale. For example, Avid Telecom, the collection of entities
serving as defendants in an Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task
Force action that involved roughly 20 billion unwanted calls in just
over a four-year period, was not itself a direct recipient of numbering
resources from the NANPA, and, held itself out as a wholesale provider.
The Task Force's complaint against Avid Telecom referenced additional
levels of resale in the robocalling scheme. Indeed, FCC Enforcement
Bureau staff encounters multiple levels of reselling numbers in the
majority of its robocall investigations.
35. Above, we propose to create a more robust NRUF reporting system
for resale and seek comment on requiring resellers of telephone numbers
to file their own reports. Recognizing that the problem of illegal
robocalls has been so intractable for Americans, we seek comment on
whether we need to affirmatively limit the extended levels of resale
that are seemingly contributing to the problem. As a means to ensure
visibility into how numbering resources are being used, and to lessen
attenuated relationships between the providers of record of numbers and
the retail providers of those numbers, we seek comment on whether we
should prohibit the resale of numbers beyond a single level, whether in
addition, or as an alternative, to expanded NRUF reporting for
resellers. That is, resellers of telephone numbers may only provide
retail service to their own end users, and may not provide wholesale
service. Are service providers directly receiving numbering resources
from the NANPA capable of adequately enforcing this limitation
contractually through resale restrictions in their wholesale contracts?
Do all or virtually all wholesale contracts include change of law
clauses that could accelerate implementation if we were to amend our
rules to add this limitation? We seek comment on whether to enforce
this restriction against both the service provider who received the
numbers directly from the NANPA and the entity which received them from
the service provider and is reselling in violation of the restriction,
and whether to hold both entities jointly and severally responsible in
any enforcement actions. Are there other means by which such a
restriction could be enforced such as, for example, by state
commissions? Also, what would be an appropriate time period for
implementing such a restriction?
36. What are the drawbacks of limiting resale to a single level of
numbering resources? Do resellers of telephone numbers below the first
level perform any uniquely useful and competitive function that is
meaningful in the voice communications marketplace? If so, what is it?
Is there an alternative way to achieve the same goals that restricting
resale to a single level may achieve, assuming that resellers do not
have their own NRUF reporting obligations? Could a system in which
wholesale providers must register their relationships with resellers of
their telephone numbers with the Commission serve to meet at least some
of these goals? Should we hold the resellers responsible for all
violations of the Commission's rules committed with the numbers they
resold? Would that provide the correct incentives to conduct due
diligence and only resell numbers to trustworthy numbering partners?
37. We seek comment on whether restricting resale of numbering
resources to a single level may conflict with existing statutory
obligations. The Commission has previously concluded that restricting
resale of fixed common carrier communications services generally is an
unjustly discriminatory practice, classification, and regulation under
Section 202(a), which is unlawful under Section 201(b). In addition,
Section 251(b)(1) of the Act (and Sec. 51.603 of our rules) imposes a
duty on all LECs not to ``prohibit, and not to impose unreasonable or
discriminatory conditions or limitations on, the resale of [their]
telecommunications services.'' At the same time, we note that Section
6(a) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement
and Deterrence (TRACED) Act grants the Commission broad authority to
take sufficient steps to reduce access to numbers by potential
robocallers. We seek comment on what actions, if any, the Commission
may have to take regarding Sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(b)(1) of
the Act, and in potentially modifying Sec. 51.603 of our rules, to
effectuate limiting resale of numbering resources to a single level.
For example, would such a limitation be reasonable under Section 6(a)
of the TRACED Act, and therefore fully compliant with Sections 201(b)
and 251(b)(1)?
C. Other Potential Measures To Strengthen Numbering Policies To Combat
Robocalls
1. Addressing Number Cycling
38. We seek comment on whether or how the Commission should address
robocalling that uses number ``cycling'' (or ``rotation'')--the use of
a typically large quantity of telephone numbers, each used on a
rotating basis as few as one or two times, often assigned by service
providers to end users on a short-term or ``trial'' basis. An illegal
robocaller may be motivated to use number cycling as a way to evade
provider and third-party analytics that flag numbers commonly used for
placing robocalls, causing calls from such numbers to be blocked. The
practice of number cycling can be particularly nefarious because calls
originating with cycled numbers can receive the highest STIR/SHAKEN
attestation level as if they were legitimate calls, as distinguished
from caller ID spoofing, which STIR/SHAKEN is capable of identifying
and preventing. Although there may be legitimate uses of number
cycling, as discussed below, misuse of number cycling is not only bad
for consumers, but also detrimental to numbering resource management
and conservation efforts.
39. According to data from voice security and intelligence company
Hiya, 18% of all reported unwanted calls in
[[Page 25319]]
the United States originate from numbers with minimal call history. The
scale of some number cycling campaigns can be enormous. In enforcement
actions against robocalling operations involving number cycling,
robocallers have used millions of numbers for this purpose. The Anti-
Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force noted that one particular
operation routed more than 4.5 billion calls in less than two years
using 474.8 million different telephone numbers, 72% of which were used
to make just one call. Five operations conducted by the same defendant,
Avid Telecom, represented billions more calls and used between 71% and
84% of the telephone numbers just once.
40. Services enabling call cycling are readily available. One
company, for example, states that its ``Auto Rotate Number'' service
can ``[e]nhance your calling strategy with auto rotate number for each
call,'' to ``[d]isplay customers a different number each time and avoid
spam markings.'' While services enabling number cycling obviously do
not overtly advertise their ability to aid in illegal robocall
campaigns, their ability to enable them is apparent. Sometimes these
services are marketed (or camouflaged) as privacy enhancing, allowing
``you [to] avail [yourself of] ad-free services which mean that they
will not call you for showing you their ads, they won't put your name
at the online directories and many more,'' or allowing a business
engaged in ``legitimate outbound operations'' to not have to rely on a
limited quantity of outbound telephone numbers that have presumably
been inappropriately tagged by robocall analytics.
41. However, there may be legitimate uses of number cycling. For
example, the NANC observed that legitimate callers may engage in number
rotation practices based on ``the perception, fueled by call completion
metrics, that anti-robocalling analytics are accidentally labeling and
blocking their calls to their customers.'' As a result, the NANC
observed, these legitimate callers believe that number rotation is an
``effective and warranted countermeasure.'' Hiya has observed that
robocallers using rotated numbers must be distinguished from
enterprises with large call volumes, small businesses with lower call
activity, and personal lines with occasional usage, having reported in
2023 on a survey of 300 business leaders that 60% said they rotate
numbers at least multiple times a month, and 29% change their numbers
automatically or on a daily basis.
42. We seek information on how frequently number cycling is used
for illegal robocalling campaigns. How frequently is it used, not for
illegal robocall campaigns, but rather to avoid legitimate calls from
being incorrectly tagged as likely illegal robocalls? To what extent is
short-term, provisional use of numbers associated with number cycling
used for robocall campaigns? To what extent are these numbers provided
on a ``trial'' basis? Are there legitimate reasons for a service
provider to provide large blocks of numbers on a ``trial'' basis? And
even if there are legitimate reasons, should there nonetheless be
restrictions on this practice for reasons other than mitigating
robocall activity (e.g., preventing number exhaust)?
43. We seek comment on whether and to what extent we should develop
rules aimed at prohibiting or limiting number cycling. It seems that in
certain cases, potentially legitimate uses of number cycling, if there
are any, may be the response by non-robocallers that have a need to
avoid their telephone numbers from being incorrectly tagged by data
analytics as illegitimate. To what extent do commenters believe this to
be the case? We request any further detail, using concrete examples,
that commenters are able to provide. Are potentially legitimate uses of
number cycling even effective at achieving their goals? Are there
ongoing improvements in call analytics that are lessening or obviating
any legitimate need for number cycling? Do the harms of allowing number
cycling outweigh any potentially legitimate benefits?
44. If we were to develop rules prohibiting number cycling, how
should it be defined, particularly if we also want to avoid barring
number cycling that is not part of illegal robocall campaigns? What
parameters do commenters suggest? Should we prohibit the provision of
trial numbers? If so, how would we define the provision and use of
trial numbers and how would compliance be monitored? Are there readily-
available statistical indicia of number cycling, such as a service
provider reporting a large quantity of telephone numbers from the same
number blocks as disconnected in the Reassigned Numbers Database? Are
trial numbers being aged for the minimum 45 days and being reported in
the Reassigned Numbers Database?
45. Should both wholesale providers and their reseller customers
bear responsibility for compliance under any number cycling and trial
numbers rules that we might adopt? Should responsibility be limited to
service providers that receive numbers directly from the NANPA, or to
all service providers in the chain? Do multiple layers of resale
exacerbate misuse of cycled numbers? We invite suggestions for any
similar or alternative approaches to addressing illegal robocall-
enabling number cycling and issues with trial numbers. We also seek
comment on the appropriate implementation period for any rules that we
may adopt regarding these issues. In addition, we seek comment on
whether we should establish a later implementation deadline for current
providers of record that are small entities and, if so, what it should
be and how we should define small entities for such purposes.
2. Removing Administrative Barriers to Stopping Numbering Fraud and
Abuse
46. We seek comment on new ways the Commission, with assistance
from the state commissions and the NANPA, can better identify
fraudulent use and misuse of telephone numbers. As recent state
commission filings demonstrate, the state commissions and the NANPA are
often the first line monitors and detectors of abuse, and we seek
comment on how we can empower them to act.
47. Increasing State Commission Access to NRUF Data. First, we seek
comment on expanding the numbering data available to state commissions
to enable them to better assist our efforts to fight robocalling and
other abuses of numbering resources. Since the 2000 Numbering Resource
Optimization First Report and Order (65 FR 37709) establishing NRUF
reporting, state commissions have had access to service provider-
specific disaggregated data to ``effectively carry out number
administration duties'' delegated to them. The Commission concluded
that if state commissions did not have access to numbering data ``their
ability to carry out these delegations of authority would be hampered .
. . .'' This includes, among other things, deciding whether to affirm a
NANPA determination that numbering resources should be withheld because
of a failure to file accurate or timely NRUF data. The Commission
initially granted state commissions access to this data subject to
confidentiality protections. The Numbering Resource Optimization Third
Report and Order (67 FR 6434) then granted state commissions
``password-protected access to the NANPA database'' again subject to
confidentiality protections. The Commission, however, restricted state
commission access to data from the rate centers and area codes within
that state as ``a further measure of protection for such data . . . .''
48. Given the evolution and complexity of today's numbering
marketplace, and the often attenuated
[[Page 25320]]
relationship between the geographic location of an area code and the
geographic location of the calling party using a number from that area
code, we now seek comment on revisiting our decision barring state
commission access to out-of-state provider-specific disaggregated NRUF
data. We seek comment on whether out-of-state access will allow the
state commissions, the NANPA, and the Commission to work better
together to identify patterns in the NRUF data to identify bad actors
abusing numbering resources, and could provide the necessary tools
allowing state commissions to take more direct action to withhold
numbering resources, as outlined below. Are there state or federal data
protection or privacy laws and rules that would preclude expansion of
state commission access to NRUF data? What additional confidentiality
protections, if any, should we impose on such expanded access?
49. We seek specific comment on whether and to what extent we
should put any limits on state commission access to out-of-state
provider-specific disaggregated data. For example, should we allow one
state (State A) to obtain NRUF data related to another state (State B)
only if the data in State B relates to the same provider or an
affiliate of the provider operating in State A? Would any other access
limit be appropriate? Does the NANPA currently collect sufficient
information on the NRUF form to be able to segregate data in this
manner and only display the data that a state commission would be
entitled to see? If not, should the Commission modify the NRUF form in
some fashion and/or direct the NANPA to change its system to allow for
that? (We note that such a change would likely require an increase in
the contract price.) What, if any, other data would need to be
collected in the NRUF reporting to support appropriate data
segregation? Should we instead not impose any limits on state
commission access to out-of-state numbering data other than the
existing confidentiality requirement? We believe that doing so would
make administration of state commission access easier because there
would be less need and burden to tailor access by state commission and
provider. However, it may raise additional confidentiality and data
protection concerns. We seek comment on the balance of the benefits and
drawbacks of broad state commission access.
50. Observing that Section 251(e)(1) of the Act states that the
Commission has the authority to delegate any portion of its
jurisdiction under the provision to ``[s]tate commissions or other
entities,'' we also seek comment on whether and to what extent we
should provide the same access to other state entities, such as state
attorneys general. Should state attorneys general have access to
provider-specific disaggregated NRUF data only on request and for
certain specific purposes? What other restrictions, if any, should be
placed on state attorney generals or other state entities' access to
numbering data? How much time should we allow for implementation if we
expand access in this manner?
51. Additional Bases for Withholding Numbering Resources for
Violation of Commission Rules and Orders. We next seek comment on
whether and under what circumstances we should delegate to state
commissions greater authority to restrict access to numbering resources
beyond what is currently in our rules. Specifically, we seek comment on
delegating to the state commissions the authority to direct the NANPA
to deny a service provider access to additional numbering resources in
that state for violating our number reporting rules. (Currently, states
only have a role in reviewing NANPA's decision to withhold numbering
resources.) We seek comment on whether state commissions may, in some
cases, be in the best position to determine whether providers are
submitting accurate and complete NRUF reports because of their
familiarity with the providers and circumstances in their state. If
state commissions are granted authority to deny access to numbering
resources in the first instance, should we create a specific process
that would entail notice in writing by the state commission to the
Commission, the NANPA, and the service provider setting forth the
grounds for the denial, and allow the provider whose resources are
withheld by state commission action to appeal that determination to the
Bureau or the full Commission? Should state commissions have to meet a
particular burden of proof or make certain showings prior to directing
the NANPA to withhold numbering resources in the first instance? How
should such decisions to withhold numbering resources be reversed,
should the state commission find reason to do so?
52. We also seek comment generally on whether there are any other
additional bases under which the Commission or state commissions should
have the ability to direct the NANPA to withhold numbering resources.
For example, should we adopt a rule providing that adjudicated
violations directly related to the use and abuse of numbering
resources, such as a violation of the Commission's ``robocall blocking
rules,'' will result in withholding of numbering resources? What about
other violations or reasons?
53. Should the Commission and, potentially, state commissions have
the discretion to direct the NANPA to withhold numbering resources
based on indicia of fraud or misuse of numbering resources that may
fall short of a final Commission or state commission determination of a
rule violation? For example, should the number of tracebacks over a
certain period of time serve as grounds for directing the NANPA to
withhold numbering resources? We note that the Commission declined to
adopt a high number of tracebacks as a trigger for removal from the
Robocall Mitigation Database, finding that it is ``not always the
case'' that a high number of tracebacks is ``evidence of malfeasance.''
However, tracebacks or similar indicia of fraud may be more appropriate
in the context of withholding numbering resources, particularly where
the sanction may be temporary and it would not have the same effect as
would a removal from the Robocall Mitigation Database. We seek comment
on that belief. Should receipt of a ``Notification of Suspected Illegal
Traffic'' pursuant to 47 CFR 64.1200(n)(2) be considered an adequate
indicium of fraud for these purposes? Are there any other indicia of
fraud or number misuse that would be appropriate to serve as a trigger
for withholding? Under what circumstances should the targeted entity be
able to seek again new numbering resources if they are ``cleared'' of
fraud or misuse? To what extent may suspected fraud be attributed to an
entire operating company enterprise rather than merely the OCN drawing
the numbering resources on which fraud is suspected? If it should be
attributed to an entire enterprise, how would this be done? Should this
apply at least at the legal-entity level--all OCNs held by the same
legal entity are subject to attribution?
54. We seek suggestions for other means of removing administrative
barriers to and delays in stopping numbering fraud and abuse. In
addition, we seek comment on potential implementation timelines for the
matters discussed above, as well as any alternatives that parties may
suggest. Are there other matters for which we should consider granting
state commissions broader authority in the context of numbering
administration, to empower their efforts in combatting robocalls?
[[Page 25321]]
C. Other Changes To Numbering Administration Policy
55. Ultimately, bad actors cannot commence illegal robocall
activities without access to numbering resources and the bar to obtain
such resources may be too low. Are there other changes that we could
make to safeguard against abuse of numbering resources for illegal
robocall purposes, in light of the massive quantity of numbering
resources used by robocallers and the need to promote efficient use of
finite numbering resources? Are there any other current numbering rules
that we should consider adopting or amending to aid the fight against
robocalls? (This is not a general request for suggested amendments to
our numbering rules but, rather, suggestions for amendments that would
aid the ability of the Commission, the NANPA, and state commissions to
safeguard against abuse of numbering resources for illegal robocall
purposes.)
IV. Costs and Benefits
56. We seek comment on the costs and benefits associated with the
various proposals and other potential actions described in this NPRM.
Robocalls impose a tremendous cost that could be meaningfully lowered
by the proposals and many of the potential actions described in this
document. The Commission has previously found that widespread
deployment of the STIR/SHAKEN framework will increase its effectiveness
for both voice service providers and their subscribers, producing
significant annual benefits due to the reduction in nuisance calls and
fraud, as well as many non-quantifiable benefits, such as restoring
confidence in incoming calls and ensuring reliable access to emergency
and healthcare communications. Consistent with the TRACED Act, the
rules we propose here are intended to help unlock those benefits.
57. How will the benefits of these proposed rules affect the number
of illegal robocalls that target consumers each year? Will these rules
address some of the most harmful cases of robocalls? Will these rules
potentially allow law enforcement an easier way to track down abusive
robocallers and recover victim funds? Are there data sources the
Commission can use to track changes in robocall activity? Could the
Commission use the number of unwanted call complaints filed with the
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Center as a proxy for the potential
effect of the proposed rules? 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. What is the expected benefit of these
lower network costs? What data sources can the Commission use to
estimate the effect on traffic on the network from these proposed rule
changes?
58. We also believe that the proposals and many of the potential
actions described in this document will aid in the conservation of
numbering resources. Improving numbering resource conservation efforts
is critical to delaying or potentially eliminating the need to incur
future costs of improving the current numbering resources. We believe
that more accurate data reporting will aid the Commission, state
commissions, and the NANPA in managing numbering resources and aid the
Commission in developing number resource conservation policy.
Similarly, given the quantity of numbering resources consumed in number
cycling, deterring or eliminating number cycling should also reduce
demand for numbering resources. How should the Commission quantify the
benefits of the potential improvement in delaying any need to expand
the universe of numbering resources in the NANP?
59. With regard to potential costs, we believe that the
certifications and disclosures we propose should place minimal burdens
on service providers and resellers of telephone numbers. We estimate
one hour of labor for each new certification and disclosure; do
providers agree with this estimate? If not, what is a more appropriate
estimate for total hours of labor per certification? Staff estimate
there are fewer than 2,400 providers that would be affected. Do
commentators agree with these estimates? We recognize that the
incremental cost of the additional information to be collected as a
result of our proposed changes to NRUF reporting to be greater on a
per-service provider basis because they likely would require changes to
internal systems, devoting resources to collecting information from
resellers of telephone numbers, and potential changes to the NANPA
contract to accommodate changes to the NANPA's NRUF reporting system.
Staff estimates indicate the costs would likely be less than $560,000
cumulatively to providers. Do commentators agree that this is a
reasonable estimate of potential costs of updating internal systems,
and collecting the necessary information? If commentators disagree,
what would be the expected costs to providers of making these changes?
Potentially prohibiting number cycling does not appear to have
meaningful cost, nor does empowering states to better implement our
policies and rules. Are there any additional costs of the proposed
rules that the Commission should consider?
60. Certain matters on which we seek comment, but do not make
proposals, may have higher costs, such as potential means of improving
available data relating to resale beyond modifications to NRUF
reporting. Further, limiting resale to a single level has the potential
to reduce resale-based competition to a certain degree. Do commenters
agree that the benefits of reducing illegal robocalls could still
outweigh such potential costs?
V. Legal Authority
61. We tentatively conclude that Section 251(e)(1) of the Act,
which grants us ``exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the
North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States,''
provides us with authority to adopt our proposals and potentially take
action on the vast majority of matters on which we seek comment. We
seek comment on this conclusion.
62. We intend to rely on the same Section 251(e)(1) authority on
which we relied in the Second VoIP Direct Access Report and Order and
Third VoIP Direct Access Report and Order (66 FR 9532) to initially
create and expand the application of robocall certification obligations
for our proposed extension of the robocall certification obligations to
all direct recipients of numbering resources. The Commission's general
NRUF reporting requirements were established in the Numbering Resource
Optimization First Report and Order pursuant to Section 251(e)(1), and
the proposed changes to the substance of the NRUF rules, as well
changes to how state commissions may access such data, would be a
continuing exercise of this authority. Section 251(e)(1) similarly
gives us authority to apply both of these sets of requirements to
resellers of telephone numbers in their role as service providers that
use numbering resources. Further, Section 251(e)(1) explicitly states
that nothing in the subsection ``preclude[s] the Commission from
delegating to State commissions or other entities all or any portion of
such jurisdiction.'' We propose to rely on this authority for the
expansion of state commissions' authority regarding enforcing our
numbering rules.
63. We also tentatively conclude that Section 6(a) of the TRACED
Act provides us with separate, additional
[[Page 25322]]
authority to adopt our proposals related to fighting illegal robocalls.
Section 6(a)(1) directed the Commission to ``commence a proceeding to
determine how Commission policies regarding access to number resources
. . . 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)).''
64. The Commission commenced the required proceeding pursuant to
the TRACED Act in March 2020. This NPRM serves an extension of that
inquiry. 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.'' Because the proposals in this NPRM and
potential actions on which we seek comment seek to reduce access to
numbers by potential perpetrators of illegal robocalls, Section 6(a) of
the TRACED Act provides an independent basis for the potential rule
changes. This includes potentially limiting resale of numbering
resources to a single level.
65. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We further
invite commenters to suggest other potential supplemental or
independent sources of authority for any rule changes that we may make
in this proceeding.
VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
66. 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
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 NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for the Small Business
Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
67. Combatting illegal robocalls remains paramount among the
Commission's consumer protection priorities. As part of its multi-
pronged effort to combat the tide of illegal robocalls, the Commission
initiates this proceeding to evaluate whether to adopt changes to its
numbering policy, particularly in how already-assigned numbers are used
by service providers to further combat illegal robocalls. Although
wireline, wireless, and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol
(VoIP) service providers may receive numbering resources directly from
the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the robocall
ecosystem is broader because it also includes multiple levels of
resellers that indirectly access numbering resources. In the NPRM, the
Commission explores and proposes a broad array of solutions to
strengthen the Commission's numbering requirements and policies,
especially as they relate to numbering resource resellers as some of
the most extensive illegal robocalling schemes often involve such
resellers.
B. Legal Basis
68. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2,
4(i), (4)(j), and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), and 251(e), and Section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act 6(a), 47 U.S.C. 227b-1(a).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
69. 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.
70. 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
in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-
profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have
fewer than 500 employees. Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions''
are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty
thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government
jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
71. The rules proposed in the NPRM 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 entities within a NAICS code SBA size standard Total firms Total small % Small firms
regulated industry where applicable) firms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............. 517111 1,500 employees......................... 3,403 3,027 88.95
[[Page 25323]]
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 517112 1,500 employees......................... 1,184 1,081 91.30
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Paging & Messaging.............................................. 59 59 100.00
Prepaid Card Providers.......................................... 47 47 100.00
Toll Resellers.................................................. 411 398 96.84
Telecommunications Resellers.................................... 633 615 97.16
Wired Telecommunications Carriers............................... 4,682 4,276 91.33
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)......... 585 498 85.13
Wireless Telephony.............................................. 326 247 75.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
72. 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.
73. In the NPRM, we propose to further extend the robocall
certification requirements applicable to interconnected VoIP providers
seeking direct access to numbering resources to all providers receiving
numbering resources directly from the NANPA, including local exchange
carriers and commercial mobile service providers, and also to all
service providers that resell service that includes the provisioning of
one or more telephone numbers. This would include interconnected VoIP
providers that do not receive numbering resources through direct
access, but through resale. We propose that all service providers
impacted by these changes would be required to comply within 30 days of
the effective date of the rules. Service providers intending to obtain
numbering resources for the first time from the NANPA, as well as
resellers intending to become operational, would be required to comply
at least 30 days prior to submitting their first request for numbering
resources to the NANPA or beginning to resell service. We seek comment
on whether these compliance dates should be extended for small
entities.
In addition, we propose modifications to the number utilization/
forecast (NRUF) reporting requirements in the numbering resource
utilization/forecast form to obtain more granular information regarding
utilization, better detect irregularities, aid robocall enforcement
efforts, and inform numbering policy development. We also propose that
any changes or clarifications would apply to the first NRUF reporting
period starting at least 12 months after the effective date of the
order promulgating these rules, and seek comment on whether to
establish a later deadline for small entities.
74. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of
matters in addition to the proposals such as restricting numbering
resale to a single level, how our numbering policy can and should
address robocallers that rely on number ``cycling''--going through
large quantities of telephone numbers on a rotating basis or even just
one time; new ways in which the Commission, with assistance from the
states and the NANPA, can better identify fraudulent use and misuse of
telephone numbers; and other changes that could safeguard against abuse
of massive quantities of numbering resources to promote efficient use
of finite numbering resources and to further deter robocalling.
75. These proposals and matters on which we seek comment, if
adopted, may create new or additional reporting or recordkeeping and/or
other compliance obligations on small entities, if adopted. We estimate
that the cost to small and other providers would be less than $560,000.
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 additional 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 NPRM.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives Considered That Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
76. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant
[[Page 25324]]
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.''
77. The NPRM seeks comment on a number of alternatives that may
minimize the impact of the proposed rules on small entities. For
example, we seek comment on whether to limit certain obligations to
service providers that obtain numbering resources directly from the
NANPA, as opposed to also including resellers. The Commission does not
believe that there will be a significant economic impact on small
entities if its proposals were to be adopted but nevertheless seeks
comment on whether it should establish a later implementation deadline
for small entities and, if so, what it should be and how we should
define small entities for such purposes. With respect to matters on
which the Commission does not propose action but discusses
implementation process, the Commission similarly seeks comment on
potential later implementation deadline for small entities.
78. In evaluating the proposals in the NPRM, 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.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
79. None.
VII. Ordering Clauses
80. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 2,
4(i), (4)(j), and 251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), and 251(e), and Section 6(a) of the
TRACED Act 6(a), 47 U.S.C. 227b-1(a), this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
81. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
82. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 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, 227b-1, 251-252, 271, 303, 332, unless otherwise
noted.
Subpart B--Administration
0
2. Section 52.15 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (f)(1), paragraphs (f)(1)(v), (f)(3)(iii), (f)(5)(i),
(f)(6)(i) and (ii), (g)(2), (g)(3)(N) and (O), (h), (k)(3), and adding
paragraph (l) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.15 Central office code administration.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) Number use categories. Numbering resources must be classified
in one of the following categories and subcategories, for which the
reporting provider bears the burden of determining status and
designating appropriate categorization and subcategorization:
* * * * *
(v) Intermediate numbers are numbers that are made available for
use by another telecommunications carrier or non-carrier entity (for
purposes of this subparagraph (f), a reseller) for the purpose of
providing telecommunications service, or any other service using
telephone numbers, to an end user or customer. Numbers ported for the
purpose of transferring an established customer's service to another
service provider shall not be classified as intermediate numbers.
Intermediate numbers must be further classified in one of the following
subcategories:
(A) Intermediate assigned numbers are numbers that are intermediate
and, from the perspective of the reseller, assigned numbers.
(B) Intermediate other numbers are numbers that are intermediate
and, from the perspective of the reseller, either administrative
numbers, aging numbers, intermediate numbers used for further resale,
or reserved numbers. Intermediate numbers used for further resale are
numbers that are made available for use by another reseller.
(C) Intermediate available numbers are numbers that are
intermediate and, from the perspective of the reseller, are available
numbers.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) All data shall be filed electronically in a format approved
by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Reporting carriers shall submit to the NANPA a utilization
report of their current inventory of numbering resources. The report
shall classify numbering resources in the following number use
categories: assigned, intermediate (specified as either intermediate
assigned or intermediate other), reserved, aging, and administrative.
Further, reporting carriers shall identify the resellers of their
telephone numbering resources by legal name and by an identification
code or codes specified by the Wireline Competition Bureau.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Reporting carriers shall file forecast and utilization reports
semi-annually on or before February 1 for the preceding reporting
period ending on December 31, and on or before August 1 for the
preceding reporting period ending on June 30.
(ii) State commissions may reduce the reporting frequency for NPAs
in their states to annual. Reporting carriers operating in such NPAs
shall file forecast and utilization reports annually
[[Page 25325]]
on or before August 1 for the preceding reporting period ending on June
30.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) Initial numbering resources. An applicant for initial numbering
resources must include in its application:
(i) Evidence that the applicant is authorized to provide service in
the area for which the numbering resources are requested;
(ii) Evidence that the applicant is or will be capable of providing
service within sixty (60) days of the numbering resources activation
date; and
(iii) A copy of its filing made pursuant to paragraph (l) of this
section. A provider of VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) services that is
unable to demonstrate authorization to provide service in a state may
instead demonstrate that the state does not certify VPC service
providers in order to request pseudo-Automatic Numbering Identification
(p-ANI) codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes
of providing 911 and E-911 service.
(3) * * *
(N) A certification that the applicant has fully complied, as
applicable, with its obligations under Sec. Sec. 1.80003(a), (j) and
(l), 22.5, and 24.404(b) (and if not applicable, explicitly state so);
(O) 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.
* * * * *
(h) National utilization threshold. All applicants for growth
numbering resources shall achieve a 75% utilization threshold,
calculated in accordance with paragraph (g)(4)(ii) of this section, for
the rate center in which they are requesting growth numbering
resources.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(3) Requests for ``for cause'' audits shall be forwarded to the
Chief of the Enforcement Bureau, with a copy to the Chief of the
Wireline Competition Bureau. Requests must state the reason for which a
``for cause'' audit is being requested and include documentation of the
alleged anomaly, inconsistency, or violation of the Commission rules or
orders or applicable industry guidelines. The Chief of the Enforcement
Bureau will provide carriers up to 30 days to provide a written
response to a request for a ``for cause'' audit.
(l) Certification obligations applicable to carriers other than
those authorized pursuant to paragraph (g)(3) of this section, and to
resellers.
(1) This subparagraph applies to the following:
(A) Carriers, other than those authorized pursuant to paragraph
(g)(3) of this section, holding or seeking to hold geographic numbering
resources that were, or will be, obtained directly from the NANPA/PA
other than p-ANI (for the purposes of this subparagraph, covered
carriers);
(B) Telecommunications carriers seeking to resell services that
include the provisioning of geographic numbering resources other than
p-ANI (for the purposes of this subparagraph, resellers).
(2) Each covered carrier and reseller must file the following:
(A) A certification that the covered carrier or reseller will not
use numbers that it obtains 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);
(B) 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;
(C) A certification that the applicant has fully complied with its
obligations under Sec. Sec. 1.80003(a), (j), and (l), 22.5, 24.404(b),
63.18(h) and (i), and 90.115 (as applicable to the applicant);
(D) A declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to Sec. 1.16
of this chapter that each certification is true and accurate. This
declaration shall be executed by an officer or other authorized
representative of the applicant.
(3) Covered carriers not yet holding geographic numbering resources
obtained directly from the NANPA other than p-ANI must make the filings
required by paragraph (l)(2) no fewer than 30 days prior to its first
initial application for numbering resources pursuant to subparagraph
(g)(2).
(4) Resellers that are not yet reselling services that include
geographic numbering resources other than p-ANI must make the filings
required by paragraph (l)(2) no fewer than 30 days prior to beginning
to resell such service.
Subpart C--Number Portability
0
3. Add Sec. 52.38 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.38 Reporting of Resale Relationships in Number Portability
Databases.
Telecommunications carriers creating or maintaining records in the
regional SMS databases for the provision of long-term database methods
for number portability described in Sec. 52.25 shall populate all
pertinent fields relating to resellers of their service.
[FR Doc. 2026-09134 Filed 5-7-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P