National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Commissioners v. Federal Communications Commission, 851 F.3d 1324

Background

FCC revised numbering rules in 2015 allowing interconnected VoIP (I-VoIP) providers to obtain North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from Numbering Administrators without state certification, subject to conditions to prevent number exhaust.
Prior rules required entities seeking numbering resources to show state authorization or to partner with a state‑certified carrier (LEC); waivers had been granted to some I‑VoIPs since 2005.
The FCC expressly declined in the Order to classify interconnected VoIP as either a Title II telecommunications service or an information service, while preserving ongoing classification proceedings.
NARUC challenged the Order, arguing the FCC either effectively classified I‑VoIP as a Title II service (thereby altering state authority) or unlawfully extended Title II rights/obligations or delayed classification arbitrarily.
The FCC defended the rule change as within its numbering authority and as preserving state numbering roles (e.g., 30‑day notice, access to data, reclamation).
The D.C. Circuit dismissed NARUC’s petition for lack of Article III standing, finding NARUC failed to show a concrete, particularized injury caused by the Order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NARUC has Article III standing to challenge FCC Order	Order undermines state commissions’ delegated role and authority by permitting I‑VoIPs to obtain numbers without state certification or carrier partners	No concrete injury to state commissions from direct number access; Order preserved state numbering authority and did not change states’ statutory powers	No standing; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the Order effectively classifies I‑VoIP as a Title II telecommunications service	Order’s practical effect is to treat I‑VoIP like a telecommunications carrier, so states lose regulatory powers unless FCC classifies service	FCC did not classify I‑VoIP and retained separate classification proceeding; permitting direct access does not itself alter classification	Court: NARUC showed only disagreement with FCC rationale, not an adverse effect; no injury from classification delay
Whether the Order unlawfully expands FCC numbering authority beyond statutory limits	NARUC: FCC exceeded its Section 251(e) authority by extending numbering effects to non‑telecommunications providers	FCC: Statutory provisions set a floor; Commission may apply numbering requirements to other providers to preserve numbering plan integrity	Court did not reach merits because of standing defect
Whether relief requested (vacatur or classification by date) would redress harm	NARUC: Vacatur or forced classification would restore state authority	Defendants: Order maintained state roles; vacatur unnecessary and would disrupt numbering processes	Court: Redress inquiry moot after finding no cognizable injury

Key Cases Cited

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (agency deference on classification of services)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requirements: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (association standing test)
Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (association must support standing allegations with evidence)
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 489 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (association standing principles)
Nat’l Tel. Coop. Ass’n v. FCC, 563 F.3d 536 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (FCC numbering and portability matters)
American Library Ass’n v. FCC, 401 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (court may request supplemental submissions on standing)
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 862 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (mere disagreement with agency rationale is not standing)
Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 917 F.2d 585 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (standing discussions in FCC challenges)