[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31131-31137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8489]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket No. 03-123; FCC 06-58]


Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 
for Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of 
Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video Relay Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission addresses the misuse of the 
two Internet-based forms of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), 
Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video Relay Service (VRS), and 
seeks comment on possible changes to the TRS regulations to curtail 
their misuse.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 3, 2006. Reply comments are 
due

[[Page 31132]]

on or before July 17, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the general public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before July 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket number 03-
123 and/or FCC Number 06-58, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone (202) 418-
0539 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition, a copy of any 
comments on the PRA information collection requirements contained 
herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications 
Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 
via the Internet to [email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB 
Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20503, or via the Internet to [email protected], or via 
fax at (202) 395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hlibok, Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office at (202) 418-1475 
(voice), (202) 418-0597 (TTY), or e-mail at [email protected]. For 
additional information concerning the PRA information collection 
requirements contained in this document, contact Leslie Smith at (202) 
418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet 
Protocol Relay Service and Video Relay Service (IP Relay Fraud FNPRM); 
CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-58, contains proposed information 
collection requirements subject to the PRA of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under Sec.  3507 of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other 
Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information 
collection requirements contained in this document. This is a summary 
of the Commission's IP Relay Fraud FNPRM, FCC 06-58, adopted May 3, 
2006, and released May 8, 2006, in CG Docket No. 03-123.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ 
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers 
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
     For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number, which in this instance 
is CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an electronic comment 
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an 
e-mail to [email protected], and include the following words in the body of 
the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption in this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies of each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
     The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or 
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing 
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be 
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
     Commercial mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    Pursuant to Sec.  1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, 
this matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in 
which ex parte communications are subject to disclosure. Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the 
presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More 
than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments 
presented is generally required. Other requirements pertaining to oral 
and written presentations are set forth in Sec.  1.1206 (b) of the 
Commission's rules.
    People With Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM contains proposed 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 contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due July 31, 2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and

[[Page 31133]]

clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 
(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1089.
    Title: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; 
Emergency Access NPRM and IP Relay/VRS Fraud FNPRM, CG Docket No. 03-
123.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Number of Respondents: 8--(6 of which provides VRS and IP Relay 
service; 2 of which provides VRS).
    Number of Responses: 5,001,190.
    Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; State, local 
or tribal government.
    Estimated Time per Response: 4 to 1,000 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Annual, one-time, and on occasion reporting 
requirement; Recordkeeping; Third party disclosure.
    Total Annual Burden: 22,848 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Needs and Uses: On May 8, 2006, the Commission released a Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Telecommunications Relay Services and 
Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 
Disabilities; Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video 
Relay Service (IP Relay Fraud FNPRM), CG Docket No. 03-123, FCC 06-58 
which contains the following information collection requirements 
involving user registration, e.g., callers register to use VRS and IP 
Relay and provide their requisite information as necessary:
    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM seeks comment on: (1) Whether IP Relay and 
VRS providers should be required to implement user registration system 
in which users provide certain information to their providers, in 
advance, as a means of curbing illegitimate IP Relay and VRS calls; (2) 
what information should be required of the user; (3) whether there are 
steps that could be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the 
wrongful use of registration information; and (4) whether the 
Commission should require VRS and IP Relay providers to maintain 
records of apparently illegitimate calls that were terminated by the 
providers.

    Note: The Commission is merging the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM 
collection with the Emergency Access NPRM collection to avoid 
duplications.

Synopsis

    IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet, rather 
than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). See Provision of 
Improved TRS and Speech to Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing 
and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, Declaratory Ruling and 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; published at 67 FR 39863, 
June 11, 2002 and 67 FR 39929, June 11, 2002 (IP Relay Declaratory 
Ruling) (recognizing IP Relay as a form of TRS). VRS is a form of TRS 
that allows communication via American Sign Language (ASL) using video 
equipment. See Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket No. 98-67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5152-5154, paragraphs 21-27 (March 6, 
2000); published at 65 FR 38432, June 21, 2000 and 65 FR 38490, June 
21, 2000 (Improved TRS Order and FNPRM) (recognizing VRS as a form of 
TRS); 47 CFR 64.601 (17) (defining VRS). Currently, if IP Relay and VRS 
are offered in compliance with the TRS mandatory minimum standards, see 
47 CFR 64.604; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Dockets 90-571 and 98-67 and CG Docket 03-123, Report and Order, Order 
on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; 
published at 69 FR 53346, September 1, 2004 and 69 FR 53382, September 
1, 2004 (2004 TRS Report and Order and FNPRM) (discussing how TRS 
works), the costs of providing the services are reimbursed from the 
Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), which is overseen by the Commission. 
Improved TRS Order and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd 5152-5154, paragraphs 23-27. 
Generally, the Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers for providing 
interstate TRS services, and the states compensate providers for 
providing intrastate TRS services. Presently, however, all VRS and IP 
Relay calls are compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund. The question 
of whether the Commission should adopt a mechanism for the 
jurisdictional separation of costs for these services is pending. 2004 
TRS Report and Order and FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564, paragraphs 
221-230 (IP Relay), at 12567, paragraphs 241-242 (VRS).

Misuse of IP Relay

    The Commission continues to receive complaints and anecdotal 
evidence that IP Relay is being misused by persons without a hearing or 
speech disability to defraud merchants by making purchases over the 
telephone using stolen, fake, or otherwise invalid credit cards, and to 
make harassing or ``prank'' calls. See generally FCC Reminds Public of 
Requirements Regarding Internet Relay Service and Issues Alert, Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 10740 (June 18, 2004) (IP Relay Fraud Public 
Notice); published at 69 FR 41478, July 9, 2004. Although such conduct 
may be illegal, because IP Relay calls reach the relay center via the 
Internet, and the calling party and the communications assistant (CA), 
the TRS provider employee who handles the call, communicate only by 
text, the CA presently receives no identifying information. 
Consequently, IP Relay affords users a degree of anonymity that is 
generally not possible with PSTN-based relay calls. Because TTY based 
TRS calls are made over the PSTN, the call to the relay center includes 
identifying information such as the calling party's number. That 
information is used to determine if the call is interstate or 
intrastate for compensation purposes under Section 255 of the 
Communications Act, but also has the effect of deterring the misuse of 
TRS because the relay provider knows where the inbound call is coming 
from. As a result, some persons have discovered that they may misuse IP 
Relay. In a typical scenario involving fraudulent credit card 
purchases, a person places an IP Relay call, usually from outside the 
United States, to a business located within the United States, places 
an order for goods (most often commodity items that can be quickly 
resold), pays with a stolen or fraudulent credit card, and arranges for 
the goods to be shipped to a location outside the United States.
    Such misuse is harmful both to the merchants who are victimized and 
legitimate IP Relay users who may no longer be able to convince 
merchants to accept their orders for merchandise. In addition, the 
Commission is concerned about the impact that such misuse may have on 
the Fund. For example, interstate telecommunications carriers that pay 
into the Fund (and generally pass those costs on to their customers) 
should not be paying more because of the misuse of funded services.

[[Page 31134]]

    The Commission has previously alerted the public and the business 
community to take precautionary steps to ensure that the credit card 
information received through IP Relay is legitimate. See (IP Relay 
Fraud Public Notice). The Commission noted that IP Relay providers are 
developing methods to determine which calls are attempts to make 
fraudulent purchases, and have successfully prevented some fraudulent 
purchase calls that can be identified as originating overseas from 
reaching their intended victims. The Commission also recommended that 
merchants report any suspected fraudulent purchase calls to the Federal 
Trade Commission, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or their state 
authorities. Although the Commission has worked with the providers on 
ways to eliminate or minimize these fraudulent purchase calls, it does 
not appear that the frequency of such calls has diminished.
    The Commission also noted the present difficulty in preventing 
fraudulent purchase calls because of the nature and purpose of TRS. Due 
to the transparent nature of the CA's role in handling a TRS call, the 
CA may not interfere with the conversation. The Commission also noted 
that the TRS statutory and regulatory regime does not contemplate that 
CAs should have a law enforcement role by monitoring the conversations 
they are relaying. The current TRS regulations, for example, prohibit 
CAs from refusing calls, and generally prevent CAs from disclosing or 
keeping records of the contents of any call. In addition, the 
regulations prohibit the CAs from intentionally altering a relayed 
conversation, and require them to relay all calls verbatim. The 
Commission adopted these regulations as part of the functional 
equivalency principle to ensure that relay users, like voice telephone 
users, may access the telephone system and have any conversation they 
want, confidentially, despite the fact that the call involves a third 
person (the CA).

Misuse of VRS as Substitute for an In-Person Interpreter or a Video 
Remote Interpreting (VRI) Service

    The Commission continues to receive anecdotal evidence that VRS is 
being used in circumstances that do not involve access to the telephone 
system, and therefore are not appropriate for a relay service. VRS is 
not to be used as a substitute for in-person interpreting services or 
for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI). See, e.g., Reminder that Video 
Relay Service (VRS) Provides Access to the Telephone System Only and 
Cannot be Used as a Substitute for ``In-Person'' Interpreting Services 
or Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), Public Notice, DA 05-2417 
(September 7, 2005) (VRS-VRI Public Notice), published at 70 FR 59346, 
October 12, 2005 (noting that the Commission continues to receive 
reports that this is occurring, and reminding, in part, that VRS ``is 
to be used only when a person with a hearing disability, who absent 
such disability would make a voice telephone call, desires to make a 
call to a person without such a disability through the telephone 
system''); see Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 
Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC 
Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 6 FCC Rcd 4054, at 4058 
(June 5, 2000), paragraph 10; see also Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, Order on Reconsideration (2005 ASL-to-Spanish VRS 
Order), 20 FCC Rcd 13154, paragraph 32, note 109; published at 70 FR 
54294, September 14, 2005. Generally, in-person interpreters are 
contracted and paid on a fee-for-service basis. Similarly, VRI is a 
commercial service that is used when an interpreter cannot be 
physically present to interpret for two or more persons who are 
together at the same location. This service uses a video connection to 
provide access to an interpreter who is at a remote location. As with 
in-person interpreters, VRI services are generally contracted and paid 
on a fee-for-service basis. The Commission recently noted that although 
``VRS providers generally have procedures in place to terminate calls 
where VRS is being used as a way to obtain free interpreting services, 
* * * persons misusing VRS may be doing so in ways to avoid detection, 
and are also publicizing these methods via consumer bulletin boards and 
other means.''

Discussion

Misuse of IP Relay

    The Commission seeks comment on whether it should waive or modify 
certain TRS rules to permit IP Relay providers and their CAs to screen 
out and, where appropriate, terminate calls they determine are not 
legitimate TRS calls. These include, for example, calls made by hearing 
persons to merchants to purchase goods with stolen or fraudulent credit 
cards. The Commission notes that in other contexts, e.g., Speech-to-
Speech (STS), the Commission has permitted the CA to step out of the 
role of strictly being a transparent conduit that relays the call. See 
Improved TRS Order and FNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, at 5162-5165 paragraphs 
49-58 (modifying certain rules for STS calls, including the requirement 
that the CA relay the call verbatim); see also 2004 TRS Report and 
Order and FNPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 12571-12573, paragraphs 249, 255-258 
(June 30, 2004) (FNPRM raises the issues whether VRS CAs should be able 
to ask questions to the VRS user during call set-up, and whether the 
TRS provider or CA should be given the discretion to decline to handle 
or terminate abusive calls directed at the CA or called party). At the 
same time, the Commission recognizes that permitting CAs to step out of 
their role as invisible conduits in a call may create tension with the 
functional equivalency principle. The Commission invites comment on 
steps the Commission might take, consistent with Section 225 of the 
Communications Act, to permit providers to prevent or terminate such 
calls, even if that means waiving, amending or modifying for IP Relay 
some of the Commission's TRS mandatory minimum standards.
    More particularly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the IP 
Relay provider or CA should be given the discretion to determine that a 
call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and to 
block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, alert the merchant who 
receives the call that the call may be fraudulent, or take some other 
steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether it should adopt rules to guide the exercise of that 
discretion.
    Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on whether an IP Relay 
provider and its CAs can generally determine whether a call to a 
merchant is for the purpose of fraudulently purchasing goods, and 
therefore is likely not by a person with a hearing or speech disability 
seeking access to the telephone system. For example, we understand that 
there are many readily identifiable indicia of IP Relay calls to 
merchants by persons seeking to make fraudulent credit card purchases, 
including that the caller will only pay via credit card; offers more 
than one credit card number for payment; will not identify him or 
herself or provide a company name; uses names in reverse (last name as 
first, first as last); does not negotiate price; will not agree to pay 
in advance via a check, bank wire, or bank draft; has few questions 
about the product and lacks knowledge about the product; refuses to 
call back using the state's relay service; and changes the payment or 
delivery arrangements after an order has been approved. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether there are other ways in which a provider

[[Page 31135]]

may determine if a particular call is not a legitimate relay call?
    The Commission seeks comment on whether additional steps, such as 
user registration, might be adopted to curtail the misuse of IP Relay. 
If the Commission adopted registration as a means of curbing 
illegitimate IP Relay calls, how might registration be implemented and 
what information should be required of the user? Are there steps that 
could be taken, or technology implemented, to prevent the wrongful use 
of registration information?
    The Commission further seeks comment on whether there is any 
statutory bar to the Commission adopting rules that would give the TRS 
providers a role in curtailing the misuse of IP Relay. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether any procedures should be employed 
to safeguard legitimate calls and ensure consumers' confidence in the 
integrity and confidentiality of IP Relay service. Assuming an IP Relay 
provider or CA is permitted to terminate a call determined to be 
illegitimate, should the provider nevertheless be compensated for the 
conversation time of the call prior to termination? Further, if the 
Commission were to allow the IP Relay provider and the CA discretion to 
disconnect apparently illegitimate calls, should the provider be 
required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with 
Section 225(d)(F) of the Communications Act? Would it be appropriate to 
include in such records the date, time, and nature of the call and the 
reason why the provider or CA determined that the call was 
illegitimate?
    Finally, the Commission requests commenters to consider whether 
Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other 
federal or state statute, would restrict the Commission's authority to 
take any of the remedial actions discussed above. Section 705 of the 
Communications Act prohibits, in part, persons who assist in receiving 
and transmitting telephone calls from divulging or publishing the 
existence or contents of a call except in certain enumerated 
circumstances. See 47 U.S.C. 605(a). The Commission seeks comment, for 
example, on whether Section 705 of the Communications Act applies to 
TRS CAs and, if so, whether permitting a CA to terminate a relay call 
based on information derived from the CA's role in relaying the call 
would be precluded by this provision. The Commission also requests 
parties to provide any additional information that may be relevant to 
preventing the misuse of IP Relay.

Misuse of VRS as Substitute for an In-Person Interpreter or a Video 
Remote Interpreting Service

    The Commission seeks comment on whether, and if so, how, it can 
ensure that VRS is not used as a substitute for hiring an in-person 
interpreter or a VRI service. Is it possible for VRS providers and 
their CAs to determine whether a particular VRS call is a legitimate 
call or is being used as a substitute for an in-person interpreting 
service or VRI? Do VRS providers presently have procedures in place to 
ensure that the VRS calls they handle and submit to the Fund 
administrator for payment are legitimate VRS calls? If not, what 
procedures could be implemented to prevent such abuse?
    The Commission further seeks comment on whether the VRS provider or 
CA should be given the discretion to make the determination that a call 
is not a legitimate VRS call, and to terminate the call. If so, should 
it adopt rules to guide the exercise of this discretion? Should the 
Commission waive or modify any of the TRS regulations to enable VRS 
providers to ensure that the calls they handle are legitimate?
    The Commission also seeks comment on whether additional steps, such 
as user registration, might be adopted to curtail the misuse of VRS. 
How might registration be implemented and what information should be 
required of the user? Are there steps that could be taken, or 
technology implemented, to prevent the wrongful use of registration 
information?
    The Commission further seeks comment on whether any procedures 
should be employed to safeguard legitimate calls and ensure consumers' 
confidence in the integrity and confidentiality of VRS. Assuming a VRS 
provider or CA is permitted to terminate a call determined to be 
illegitimate, should the provider nevertheless be compensated for the 
conversation time of the call prior to termination? Further, if the 
Commission were to allow the VRS provider and the CA discretion to 
disconnect apparently illegitimate VRS calls, should the provider be 
required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with 
Section 225(d)(i)(F) of the Communications Act? 47 U.S.C. 225(d)(i)(F) 
(prohibiting CAs from ``keeping records of the content'' of any call 
beyond the duration of the call). Would it be appropriate to include in 
such records the date, time, and nature of the call and the reason why 
the provider or CA determined that the call was illegitimate?
    Finally, the Commission requests commenters to consider whether 
Section 705 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other 
federal or state statute, would restrict the Commission's authority to 
take any of the remedial actions discussed above. The Commission also 
requests parties to provide any additional information that may be 
relevant to our resolution of this issue.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this IP Relay Fraud FNPRM. See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 
U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America 
Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law Number 104-121, 110 Statute 857 
(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the IP Relay 
Fraud FNPRM provided in paragraph 24 of the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    Providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS), mandated by 
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, relay 
telephone calls between persons with hearing and speech disabilities 
and persons without such disabilities. See 47 U.S.C. 225. Under the 
Commission's regulations, the communications assistant (CA) may not 
refuse calls or disclose the contents of any call. The Commission 
adopted these regulations as part of the functional equivalency 
principle to ensure that relay users, like voice telephone users, may 
access the telephone system and have any conversation they want, 
confidentially, despite the fact that the call involves a third person 
(the CA). See 47 U.S.C. (a)(3). IP Relay and VRS offer consumers 
anonymity because the call is placed via the Internet, and not the 
PSTN, the Commission has become aware that these services are being 
misused. Persons have been using IP Relay to purchase goods from 
merchants using

[[Page 31136]]

stolen or fraudulent credit cards. Such misuse is harmful both to the 
merchant who is defrauded and legitimate relay users who may no longer 
be able to convince merchants to accept orders via relay. With respect 
to VRS, the Commission has expressed concern that it is being misused 
as a substitute for hiring a Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) service or 
an in-person interpreter. The Commission is also concerned that the 
rapid and steady increase in the size of the Interstate TRS Fund may in 
part be a result of such misuse of IP Relay and VRS. Therefore, the IP 
Relay Fraud FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should waive 
or modify certain TRS rules to permit IP Relay and VRS providers to 
screen out and, where appropriate, terminate, IP Relay calls involving 
fraudulent credit card purchases or VRS calls that are illegitimate.
    These TRS rules might include those that prevent a CA from refusing 
calls, generally prohibit a CA from disclosing or keeping records of 
the content of a call, prohibit a CA from intentionally altering a 
relayed conversation, and required CAs to relay calls verbatim. See 47 
CFR 64.604(a)(2)(i) and (ii).
    More specifically, the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM provisionally considers 
granting the IP Relay provider or CA the discretion to determine that a 
call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and to 
block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, alert the merchant who 
receives the call that the call may be fraudulent. The IP Relay Fraud 
FNPRM also asks for any recommendation on a possible alternative 
measure to prevent the misuse of IP Relay. In doing so, the Commission 
contemplates adopting new rules that guide the provider and the CA the 
exercise of that discretion. Further, the proposed user registration is 
being contemplated as an additional measure to curtail the misuse of IP 
Relay. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM also asks for an alternative measure.
    The IP Relay Fraud IP Relay Fraud FNPRM provisionally proposes 
that, assuming an IP Relay provider or CA were granted the discretion 
to disconnect apparently illegitimate calls, the provider should be 
required to maintain records of such terminated calls, consistent with 
Section 225 (d)(i)(f) of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 225 
(d)(i)(f) (prohibiting CAs from ``keeping records of the content'' of 
any call beyond the duration of the call). The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM 
contemplates on any rule changes permitting IP Relay providers or CAs 
to terminate apparently illegitimate calls be made permanently or 
temporarily.
    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM seeks input on whether Section 705 of the 
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 605, or any other federal or state 
statute, may restrict the Commission's authority to take any of the 
remedial actions discussed above. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2511 (which is 
noted in Section 705 of the Communications Act). Finally, the IP Relay 
Fraud FNPRM asks whether the providers that terminated these apparently 
illegitimate calls should be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund 
nonetheless.
    In contemplating an appropriate measure to ensure that VRS is not 
used as a substitute for an in-person interpreter of VRI service, the 
IP Relay Fraud FNPRM asks for recommendation on how the Commission can 
ensure that VRS is not being misused. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM proposes 
a possible rule change that grants the VRS provider or CA the 
discretion to make the determination that a call is not a legitimate 
VRS call, and to terminate the call. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM also 
tentatively considers waiving or modifying certain TRS regulations to 
enable VRS providers to ensure that the calls they handle are 
legitimate.
    In addition, the proposed user registration is being contemplated 
as an additional measure to curtail the misuse of VRS. The IP Relay 
Fraud FNPRM contemplates whether rule changes permitting VRS providers 
or CAs to terminate apparently illegitimate calls should be made 
permanent or temporary. Finally, the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM asks whether 
the provider that terminated these apparently illegitimate calls should 
be compensated from the Interstate TRS Fund nonetheless.

Legal Basis

    The authority for the actions proposed in this IP Relay Fraud FNPRM 
may be found in Sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 201-205, 218 and 225 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 
201-205, 218 and 225, and Sec. Sec.  64.601-64.608 of the Commission's 
regulations, 47 CFR 64.601-64.608.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA 
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning 
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small 
governmental jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term 
``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business 
concern'' under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating 
by reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in the Small 
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to the 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the 
statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless an agency, 
after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes 
one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the 
activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the 
Federal Register.'' 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. 15 U.S.C. 632.
    As noted above, the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM seeks comment on whether 
IP Relay and VRS providers should be given the discretion to determine 
that a call is not a legitimate TRS call on a case-by-case basis, and 
to block, terminate, or refuse to handle the call, or (for IP Relay) 
alert the merchant who receives the call that the call may be 
fraudulent, or take some other steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay 
and VRS. As a result, the Commission believes that the entities that 
may be affected by the proposed rules are only those TRS providers that 
offer IP Relay and VRS. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition of ``small entity'' specifically directed toward 
TRS providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, for which the small business 
size standard is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 
121.201, NAICS Code 517110. Currently, there are eight TRS providers 
that offer VRS and/or IP Relay, which consist of interexchange 
carriers, local exchange carriers, other common carriers, and non-
profit organizations. Approximately three or fewer of these entities 
are small businesses under the SBA size standard. See National 
Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) Statistics. These 
numbers are estimates because of recent and pending mergers and 
partnerships in the telecommunications industry.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM's proposed rules would permit CAs to 
terminate certain IP Relay and VRS calls in circumstances where they 
believe the

[[Page 31137]]

call is illegitimate. A registration requirement, if adopted, might 
require VRS and IP Relay providers to register each user so that the 
provider would have identifying information of the person making the 
call, and might require the provider or user to update this information 
as necessary. The rules, if adopted, might also require the providers 
to keep records of calls that are terminated.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
alternatives, specific to small businesses, that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.'' 5 
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)--(4).
    The Commission considers the proposed rule changes in the IP Relay 
Fraud FNPRM as a possible means of achieving the competing public 
policy goals of ensuring that TRS works as a transparent conduit for 
the calling and called parties and preventing the misuse of IP Relay 
and VRS services. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM invites comment on a number 
of alternative means by which IP Relay and VRS providers might 
undertake to curtail illegitimate calls. For example, the IP Relay 
Fraud FNPRM asks if the Commission should amend TRS rules to allow 
providers the discretion to refuse or terminate illegitimate IP Relay 
and VRS calls.
    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM also seeks comment on other means by which 
the Commission might curtail the misuse of IP Relay and VRS, including 
by adopting a registration requirement. The Commission also asks if 
there may be alternatives to requiring registration or imposing new 
obligations on providers, such as waiving certain TRS calls. These 
alternatives could mitigate any burden the proposed registration 
requirement might have on small businesses.
    The Commission notes that by promulgating the rules in allowing the 
provider and the CA the discretion to terminate apparent illegitimate 
calls, it would lessen an adverse economic impact on small businesses. 
The proposed rule change would save many small businesses that may be 
affected by these illegitimate calls. For instance, small businesses 
are more vulnerable with illegitimate calls involving fraudulent credit 
card purchases because they often are not equipped to verify the credit 
card numbers. The proposed rule change that calls for granting the 
provider and the CA the discretion to terminate apparent illegitimate 
calls would not create an additional financial burden on any provider, 
including small businesses.
    The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM contemplates requiring the providers to 
maintain records of terminated calls, and seeks comment on what these 
records should include. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM notes, however, that 
such a requirement might conflict with the Commission's rules, and also 
seeks comment on this issue. The IP Relay Fraud FNPRM therefore 
contemplates that it may not be possible to require providers to 
maintain any records.
    Further, the IP Relay Fraud FNPRM also invites comment on whether 
any proposed rule change and/or requirement should be permanent or 
temporary. To the extent the adopted measure requiring the providers to 
maintain records is temporary, any burden on small businesses would be 
lessened.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 225, 303(r), 403, 624(g), and 
706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i) and (o), 225, 303(r), 403, 554(g), and 606, this Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    The Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8489 Filed 5-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P