[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43538-43542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18093]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123; FCC 12-71]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts a measure that 
prohibits Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay providers from handling non-
emergency calls made by new IP Relay registrants as guest users prior 
to taking reasonable measures to verify their registration information. 
The Commission's action is intended to eliminate abuse that has 
resulted from unauthorized users having access to IP Relay services 
prior to verification of their registration information.

DATES: Effective July 25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Misuse 
of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service; Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities, First Report and Order (Order), document FCC 12-
71, adopted on June 28, 2012 and released on June 29, 2012, in CG 
Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123. The full text of document FCC 12-71 will 
be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best 
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563, 
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 12-71 can also be downloaded 
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders. 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 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document FCC 12-71 does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or 
modified information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

    1. In document FCC 12-71, the Commission takes an important step to 
curb the misuse of IP Relay by prohibiting IP Relay providers from 
handling non-emergency calls made by new IP Relay registrants prior to 
taking reasonable measures to verify their registration information. In 
taking this action, the Commission underscores its ongoing commitment 
to ensuring that Internet-based telecommunications relay services 
(iTRS) provide the communication access intended by Congress in section 
225 of the Communications Act, while eliminating fraud and abuse in 
this program. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service 
Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Second Report and Order, FCC 11-118; 
published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011 and at 76 FR 47476, August 5, 
2011 (iTRS Certification Order) (defining iTRS to mean all forms of 
telecommunications relay service (TRS) in which an individual with a 
hearing or speech disability uses an Internet connection with a 
communications assistant (CA) to make calls, including Video Relay 
Service (VRS), IP Relay, and IP captioned telephone service (IP CTS)). 
VRS uses video over a broadband Internet connection to allow a person 
who uses

[[Page 43539]]

sign language to communicate with another party through a CA.
    2. IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet to 
allow individuals with hearing and/or speech disabilities to 
communicate with other individuals. In 2006, the Commission initiated a 
rulemaking proceeding to address the misuse of IP Relay and VRS. 
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, CG Docket No. 03-
123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 06-58; published at 71 
FR 31131, 2006 (2006 FNPRM). The Commission took that action in part 
because of concerns that individuals without a hearing or speech 
disability were using the anonymity of the IP Relay service to call 
merchants and place orders using fake, stolen, or otherwise invalid 
credit cards. The 2006 FNPRM sought comment on ways to curb fraudulent 
calls made via IP Relay, including requirements for user registration 
and rule changes that would permit relay providers to screen and 
terminate such calls.
    3. Since the 2006 FNPRM, the Commission has undertaken a number of 
measures to combat the misuse of iTRS. Most relevant to the instant 
proceeding, in June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system 
requiring IP Relay and VRS users to be assigned ten-digit telephone 
numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and registered with 
their provider of choice (default provider). Telecommunications Relay 
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 
Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service 
Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-151; published at 73 
FR 41286, July 18, 2008 and at 73 FR 41307, July 18, 2008 (iTRS 
Numbering Order I). The Commission explained that such registration and 
the requirement for each user to provide a ``Registered Location'' 
would reduce the misuse of IP Relay. The Commission also sought comment 
on whether additional steps were needed to curtail illegitimate calls 
made through this service.
    4. In December 2008, the Commission adopted a second iTRS numbering 
Order in which it directed IP Relay and VRS providers to ``implement a 
reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility 
information,'' including the consumer's name and mailing address, 
before issuing a ten-digit telephone number to new or existing users. 
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for 
IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-
196, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 08-275; 
published at 73 FR 79683, December 30, 2008 (iTRS Numbering Order II). 
The Commission provided the following examples of what such 
verification could include: ``(1) Sending a postcard to the mailing 
address provided by the consumer, for return to the default Internet-
based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on-camera ID checks during 
registration; or (3) other verification processes similar to those 
performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as 
banks and credit card companies).'' The Commission further directed 
providers to include in their verification procedures a requirement for 
consumers to self-certify that they have a medically recognized hearing 
or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS. The Commission 
expected that ``these measures [would] reduce the misuse of Internet-
based TRS by those who may take advantage of the anonymity currently 
afforded users, particularly IP Relay users, without unduly burdening 
legitimate Internet-based TRS consumers seeking to obtain ten-digit 
telephone numbers.'' The Commission added, however, that ``to the 
extent technically feasible, Internet-based TRS providers must allow 
newly registered users to place calls immediately,'' even before 
completing the verification of such individuals. In permitting such 
temporary use of iTRS by new registrants, the Commission responded to 
comments by a coalition of consumer groups, who were concerned that 
legitimate IP Relay users would be cut off from service during the 
transition to the new ten-digit numbering and registration system. In 
order to enable users to make calls under this ``guest user'' 
procedure, providers have been giving users temporary ten-digit numbers 
and provisioning these numbers to the iTRS Directory. These numbers 
have been allowed to remain valid for the purpose of making IP Relay 
calls until such time that the users' identifying information is 
authenticated or rejected.
    5. In October 2009, the Commission issued a Public Notice reminding 
iTRS providers of their obligation to implement the measures discussed 
above by November 12, 2009. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau 
Reminds Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol (IP) Relay 
Service Providers of their Outreach Obligations and Clarifies their 
Call Handling Obligations for Unregistered Users after the November 12, 
2009, Ten-Digit Numbering Registration Deadline, CG Docket No. 03-123, 
WC Docket No. 05-196, Public Notice, DA 09-2261; 24 FCC Rcd 12877, 
October 21, 2009 (iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice). Because 
these were new requirements that would have a direct impact on consumer 
use of the IP Relay program, the iTRS Numbering Implementation Public 
Notice again directed each provider to handle calls from newly 
registered users immediately, even if the provider had not fully 
completed the process of verifying the caller's information, assigning 
the caller a new ten-digit number, and provisioning that number to the 
iTRS database. The iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice did not 
eliminate the requirement for providers to implement a reasonable 
process for verifying registration information provided by new users.
    6. In April 2011, the Commission adopted several additional 
measures to combat IP Relay fraud and abuse, including a requirement 
for all TRS providers to submit to Commission-directed audits, a 
mandate for iTRS providers to retain, for five years, call detail 
records and other records supporting claims for payment, whistleblower 
protection rules for provider employees and contractors, and a 
requirement that a senior executive of a TRS provider certify, under 
penalty of perjury, to the validity of minutes and data submitted to 
the TRS Fund administrator. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay 
Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-54; published at 76 FR 24393, May 
2, 2011 and at 76 FR 24437, May 2, 2011 (VRS Fraud Order). The 
Commission followed these measures in July 2011 with the adoption of 
stricter certification rules for iTRS providers, authorization for on-
site visits to the premises of applicants for iTRS certification and 
certified iTRS providers, revised notification requirements for 
providers to alert the Commission about substantive program changes, 
and a mandate for providers to certify, under penalty of perjury, as to 
the accuracy of their certification applications and their annual 
compliance filings to the Commission. See (iTRS Certification Order).
    7. Notwithstanding the various measures noted above, concerns about

[[Page 43540]]

the continued abuse of the IP Relay system prompted the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) to issue a Refresh Public Notice 
on February 13, 2012, to refresh the record initiated by the 2006 FNPRM 
on matters pertaining to IP Relay misuse. Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record Regarding Misuse of Internet 
Protocol Relay Service, CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123, Public Notice, 
DA 12-208; published at 77 FR 11997, February 28, 2012 (Refresh Public 
Notice). Among other things, in the Refresh Public Notice, the Bureau 
expressed concern that current methods used by iTRS providers to verify 
registration and eligibility information submitted by IP Relay users 
may not be ``reasonable'' as required by the Commission's rules, and 
that the Commission ``may need to impose additional and more specific 
requirements * * * to curb IP Relay misuse.''
    8. Among the issues raised in the Refresh Public Notice was whether 
the Commission should continue its procedure adopted in iTRS Numbering 
Order II of requiring IP Relay providers to permit newly registered 
users to place calls prior to the completion of a provider's user 
verification process, given the potential for misuse of IP Relay by 
unverified registrants. The Commission now concludes that the record in 
this proceeding supports the elimination of that procedure. Further, 
given the record evidence, the Commission now prohibits granting such 
temporary authorization for any IP Relay calls other than emergency 
calls to 911 services.
    9. Parties responding to the Refresh Public Notice overwhelmingly 
agree that allowing new users to make IP Relay calls pending the 
provider's verification of the user's registration information 
contributes significantly to the misuse of IP Relay. Under this 
procedure, commenters report, large numbers of fraudulent users have 
easy access to the IP Relay system for extended periods of time before 
verification is complete and access can be denied. As noted above, this 
is because in order to make IP Relay calls as a guest user, the user is 
given a ten-digit number that remains a valid number in the iTRS 
database until such time that the user's identifying information is 
authenticated or rejected. The Consumer Groups do not oppose ending 
temporary authorization for unverified IP Relay non-emergency callers, 
but advocate that the verification process should be completed within 
72 hours.
    10. The Commission concludes that a prohibition against temporary 
authorization of IP Relay users is now necessary in order to curb the 
fraud and abuse that has resulted from provider misuse of this 
procedure. Specifically, although there may have been some value in 
allowing unverified users to make calls for a short period of time 
during the Commission's transition to the IP Relay registration system, 
the Commission is concerned that reliance on the guest user procedure 
has resulted in abuse of the IP Relay program by unauthorized IP Relay 
users. In addition, the Commission is concerned that unverified users 
have remained in the iTRS numbering directory--and made repeated IP 
Relay calls--for extended periods of time, despite the obligation of IP 
Relay providers to institute procedures to verify the accuracy of 
registration information.
    11. Moreover, any rationale for initially permitting temporary user 
authorization--i.e., to prevent the exclusion of users who were already 
using IP Relay service and were either unfamiliar with the Commission's 
new registration process or had not yet registered--is greatly 
diminished because considerable time has passed since the transition 
period for registering ended on November 12, 2009. Hamilton Relay, Inc. 
notes that the vast majority of legitimate users have already been 
registered, and the Commission is less concerned that legitimate users 
will be cut off from IP Relay service. At the same time, the Commission 
has significant concerns about the extent to which the IP Relay program 
has fallen prey to abuse. As noted above, IP Relay abuse has placed 
unnecessary costs on the TRS Fund and has resulted in businesses 
rejecting IP Relay calls from legitimate users. In weighing the 
Consumer Groups' interest in enabling legitimate new users to obtain 
reasonably prompt access to IP Relay Service against the record 
evidence of significant problems of misuse caused by the guest user 
procedure, the Commission believes that on balance, the clear and 
critical need to ensure the integrity of the IP Relay program by 
requiring that users are fully verified prior to receiving service 
outweighs any residual risk of harm from the temporary deferral of 
service to a small number of new legitimate users. With respect to the 
Consumer Groups' specific recommendation that the Commission eliminate 
the guest user procedure only if the Commission requires that the 
verification process be completed within 72 hours, the Commission 
believes that on balance, ensuring that users are fully and effectively 
verified is more critical to restoring the integrity of the IP Relay 
program than is placing a time limit on the verification process. The 
Commission also believes that without the option to register guest 
users, IP Relay providers will have a strong incentive to expeditiously 
complete their verification processes. Nevertheless, the Commission 
will continue to review the matter of timing as the Commission 
considers the adoption of more specific IP Relay verification 
requirements.
    12. The prohibition against temporary authorization of IP Relay 
users that the Commission now adopts requires that until an IP Relay 
provider verifies a new IP Relay user in accordance with the 
Commission's standards as set forth in the Commission's rules and 
requirements, it will not be permitted to deem such user as 
``registered'' for purposes of Sec.  64.611(b) of the Commission's 
rules, and will be prohibited from: (1) Handling the user's IP Relay 
calls other than 911 emergency calls; (2) assigning the user a ten-
digit number; or (3) provisioning such number to the iTRS Directory. 
The Commission further expects default providers to periodically review 
the ten-digit numbers that they place in the iTRS numbering directory, 
for the purpose of deleting numbers that have been assigned to users 
that ultimately are not ``registered'' or that are otherwise associated 
with fraudulent calling practices. Such actions will ensure that only 
verified users have active numbers and prevent ineligible users from 
using the services of other providers who are unaware of a default 
provider's ultimate decision to reject user authorization. The 
Commission's objective is to ensure that the IP Relay program serves 
only legitimate users. In addition, because there will be fewer calls 
from fraudulent callers, these actions will benefit legitimate users by 
reducing the incentive of recipients of IP Relay calls to reject these 
calls. The Commission notes that this is only one of a series of 
actions the Commission intends to take in this docket to curb IP Relay 
fraud and abuse. The Commission's overarching goal is to ensure that 
providers take the steps needed to curb IP Relay misuse, so that this 
service can remain a viable and valuable communication tool for 
Americans who need it.

Effective Date

    13. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a 
substantive rule cannot become effective earlier than 30 days after the 
required publication or service of the rule, except ``as otherwise 
provided by the agency for good cause

[[Page 43541]]

found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d). See also 47 CFR 
1.427(a). As discussed above, the record in this proceeding, including 
the comments filed by IP Relay providers, has demonstrated the 
prevalence of misuse of IP Relay and supports the immediate 
implementation of a measure--the elimination of temporary user 
authorization for non-emergency calls--that could substantially reduce 
such misuse. This measure should produce the immediate benefit of 
reducing payments for illegitimate minutes from the TRS Fund. The 
Commission further expects that its action will have a minimal adverse 
impact, if any, on the provision of IP Relay service to legitimate 
users, given the considerable time that has passed since the transition 
period for registering ended on November 12, 2009. Rather, the measure 
the Commission adopts will benefit such users by reducing the incentive 
of recipients of IP Relay calls to reject calls from legitimate users 
because there will be fewer calls from fraudulent callers. With respect 
to the technical feasibility of instituting this measure immediately, 
the Commission notes that at least one provider has stated from its 
perspective, that ``a prohibition of `guest access' could be 
implemented on an immediate basis, while another has urged the 
Commission to `close the loophole immediately.' '' Accordingly, the 
Commission finds that good cause exists for making these measures 
effective immediately July 25, 2012.
    14. In document FCC 12-71, the Commission takes action intended to 
immediately curb the misuse of IP Relay by prohibiting providers of IP 
Relay from providing service (other than handling emergency calls to 
911 services) to new registrants until a new user's registration 
information is verified. It is the Commission's intention to adopt 
additional measures addressing misuse of IP Relay in future orders.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 
603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated 
in the 2006 FNPRM. The Commission sought comment on the proposal in the 
2006 FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA, of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in 
the 2006 FNPRM. No comments were received on the IRFA. This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 5 U.S.C. 
604.
    16. Providers of TRS, mandated by Title IV of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 225 of the 
Communications Act), relay telephone calls so that individuals who are 
deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have speech disabilities can 
engage in communication by wire or radio with other individuals in a 
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of hearing 
individuals who do not have speech disabilities to communicate using 
voice communication services by wire or radio. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3). 
Because IP Relay Service offers consumers anonymity as the call is 
placed via the Internet, this service has become subject to abuse. 
Among other things, persons have been using IP Relay to purchase goods 
from merchants using stolen or fraudulent credit cards. Such misuse is 
harmful both to the merchant who is defrauded and to legitimate relay 
users who find that their relay calls are rejected by merchants. 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.
    17. The 2006 FNPRM sought comment on ways to prevent the misuse of 
IP Relay, including among other things, a requirement to register IP 
Relay users. In June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system in 
which users of iTRS, including IP Relay, are assigned ten-digit 
telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and iTRS 
users with disabilities are registered with their provider of choice 
(default provider). The Commission also required IP Relay providers to 
handle calls from a newly registered user immediately, even if the 
provider had not completed the process of verifying the caller's 
information.
    18. In the Refresh Public Notice, the Commission sought comment on 
whether it should prohibit temporary authorization for a user to place 
IP Relay calls, other than emergency calls, while verification of the 
caller is taking place.
    19. Document FCC 12-71 is intended to curb the misuse of IP Relay 
by prohibiting providers of IP Relay from handling non-emergency IP 
Relay calls for new registrants until their registration information is 
verified. The Commission's decision today helps ensure that the iTRS 
program provides the communication services intended by Congress in 
section 225 of the Communications Act, while eliminating fraud and 
abuse. No party filing comments in this proceeding responded to the 
IRFA, and no party filing comments in this proceeding otherwise argued 
that the policies and rules proposed in this proceeding would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(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). 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.
    21. As noted above, this document prohibits providers of IP Relay 
from providing service (other than handling emergency calls to 911) to 
new registrants until their registration information is verified. 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. 
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of 
``small entity'' specifically directed toward IP Relay 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 (2007). Currently, there are five TRS providers that 
are authorized by the Commission to offer IP Relay. One or two of these 
entities may be small businesses under the SBA size standard.
    22. Document FCC 12-71 does not impose any new reporting or record 
keeping requirements. Although this document requires IP Relay 
providers to refuse IP Relay service to individuals who are not deemed 
qualified to receive IP Relay service, IP Relay providers are already 
required to refuse IP Relay service to unqualified individuals. While 
the new requirements expand the circumstances under which individuals 
are to be denied IP Relay service initially, they do not impose new 
compliance requirements on small entities.
    23. 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

[[Page 43542]]

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).
    24. The Commission considers the requirements adopted in this 
document as a means of achieving the public policy goals of ensuring 
that TRS can provide functionally equivalent communication access and 
preventing the misuse of IP Relay. As noted above, although the impact 
of this document will be for IP Relay providers to refuse IP Relay 
service to new IP relay users who are not qualified to receive IP Relay 
service, IP Relay providers are already required to refuse this service 
to unqualified individuals. Since the new requirements change the 
application of existing compliance requirements, but do not impose new 
compliance requirements on small entities, the Commission finds that it 
has minimized significant economic impact on small entities. The 
alternatives of either retaining the requirement that providers of IP 
Relay handle non-emergency IP Relay calls for new registrants prior to 
verification of registration information or permitting the handling of 
such calls at the election of the provider, would not curb the misuse 
of IP Relay by new registrants whose registration information--due to 
the preexisting guest user procedure--still requires verification.
    25. The Commission notes that by reducing the misuse of IP Relay, 
these new requirements will lessen an adverse economic impact on small 
businesses. Specifically, the new requirements will protect many small 
businesses that may be affected by illegitimate IP Relay calls. For 
instance, small businesses are more vulnerable to illegitimate IP Relay 
calls involving fraudulent credit card purchases because they often are 
not aware that the credit cards are being illegally used or are not 
equipped to verify the credit card numbers. Because these new 
requirements will prevent unqualified individuals from placing IP Relay 
calls, these requirements will have the additional effect of reducing 
the incidence of credit card fraud.
    26. There are no Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the new rules.

Congressional Review Act

    27. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 12-71 in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    28. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 225, and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 
225, and 303(r), and Sec.  1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.427, document FCC 12-71 is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18093 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P