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, 31131-31137 [E6-8489]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
stringent than the Federal performance
standard for the type of fuel burned. The
State responded by writing that Ohio
relies on the Federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) to set
standards for appropriate units and the
State emission standards are not
intended to be more restrictive than
NSPS. Ohio statute prohibits State rules
more stringent than Federal rules. While
this action appears to be a relaxation for
an oil-fired unit, the backstop is the
Federal NSPS. However, as comments
were being considered by the State, the
source (General Motors Corporation)
shut down the Moraine Assembly Plant
boiler. This unit was the only boiler
affected by the rescinded rule. All other
existing boilers of 250 million BTU per
hour or larger in size are covered by the
NOX SIP Call and have emissions caps
during the ozone season.
V. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
We are proposing to approve the
State’s request to rescind the rule OAC
3745–23–06. A review of the Ohio Title
V permit list shows that the only permit
still in the system which references this
rule is for a 250 million BTU boiler
formerly owned by the General Motors
Corporation (GM). The GM Moraine
assembly plant permit applies to a gas
fired boiler (with oil back-up) which
ceased operation in 2003, about a year
before this action (to rescind this rule)
was approved by the Ohio EPA Director.
Citizens who wish to comment on this
action are encouraged to do so within
the time-frame noted in the front of this
notice.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866; Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, September 30, 1993), this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
and therefore is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget.
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule proposes to approve
pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required
by state law, it does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
Executive Order 13132 Federalism
This action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the
national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and
does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
Executive Order 13175 Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13045 Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This proposed rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ this action is also not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31131
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272,
requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus to
carry out policy objectives, so long as
such standards are not inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior
existing requirement for the state to use
voluntary consensus standards, EPA has
no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use such
standards, and it would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in place of a program
submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTA do not apply.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 17, 2006.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E6–8467 Filed 5–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
31132
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
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: FCC504@fcc.gov
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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov,
and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk
Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or
via the Internet to
Kristy_L._LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, 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
Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. 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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
(OMB) for review under § 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 §§ 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: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://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 ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail
address>.’’ 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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 § 1.1200 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this
matter shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ 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 § 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 forprofit entities; State, local or tribal
government.
Estimated Time per Response: 4 to
1,000 hours.
Frequency of Response: Annual, onetime, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
31133
Commission should require VRS and IP
Relay providers to maintain records of
apparently illegitimate calls that were
terminated by the providers.
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).
Note: The Commission is merging the IP
Relay Fraud FNPRM collection with the
Emergency Access NPRM collection to avoid
duplications.
Misuse of IP Relay
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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 PSTNbased 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.
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
31134
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
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 InPerson 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
Misuse of VRS as Substitute for an InPerson 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 inperson 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31135
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
31136
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
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 §§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 105 / Thursday, June 1, 2006 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:19 May 31, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31137
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018–AT92
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat for Monardella linoides
ssp. viminea (willowy monardella)
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
public comment period and notice of
availability of draft economic analysis.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the public comment period
on the proposed designation of critical
habitat for Monardella linoides ssp.
viminea (willowy monardella) and the
availability of a draft economic analysis
of the proposed designation of critical
habitat. We are reopening the comment
period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously
on the proposed rule and the associated
draft economic analysis. Comments
previously submitted on the November
9, 2005, proposed critical habitat rule
need not be resubmitted as they have
already been incorporated into the
public record and will be fully
considered in our final determination.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
directly to the Service (see ADDRESSES
section) on or before July 3, 2006.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on
the proposed rule or draft economic
analysis, you may submit your
comments and materials identified by
RIN 1018–AT92, by any of the following
methods:
(1) E-mail: fw8cfwomolivi@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 1018–AT92’’ in the
subject line.
(2) Fax: 760/431–9624.
(3) Mail: Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor,
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010
Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA
92011.
(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: You may
hand-deliver written documents to our
office (see ADDRESSES).
(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish
and Wildlife Office, telephone, 760/
431–9440; facsimile, 760/431–9624.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments Solicited
We will accept written comments and
information during this reopened
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 105 (Thursday, June 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31131-31137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://
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: FCC504@fcc.gov 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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov, and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB
Desk Officer, Room 10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, or via the Internet to Kristy--L.--LaLonde@omb.eop.gov, 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 Gregory.Hlibok@fcc.gov. 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 Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov.
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: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 ecfs@fcc.gov, 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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
