[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11997-12000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4658]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123; DA 12-208]
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks To Refresh the
Record Regarding Misuse of Internet Protocol Relay Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) seeks comment to refresh the
record regarding misuse of Internet Protocol relay service. Further
comments are requested to bring the record up to date on proposed
additional rules that would have the intended effect of reducing or
eliminating misuse of Internet Protocol Relay.
DATES: Submit comments on or before March 20, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 12-38
and 03-123, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and
03-123.
Paper filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. 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.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. 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.
In addition, parties must serve one copy of each pleading with the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, or via email to
fcc@bcpiweb.com.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 (voice), (202) 418-2922 (TTY), or email at
Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Public Notice, document DA 12-208, released February 13, 2012. The full
text of document DA 12-208 and copies of any subsequently filed
documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. Document DA 12-208 and copies of subsequently filed documents in
this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's
duplicating contractor at its Web site www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling
1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people
with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY). Document DA 12-208 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable
Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html. Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
before the date indicated in the DATES section of this document.
Comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive
discussion and questions raised in the document DA 12-208. The
Commission further directs all interested parties to include the name
of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
comments. Comments must otherwise comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules.
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et. seq., this matter shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large
[[Page 11998]]
print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov
or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document DA 12-208 does not contain any new proposed information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
In document DA 12-208, the Bureau seeks to refresh the record on
several issues pertaining to misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay
Service, including issues that were initially raised in the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006 FNPRM) released by the Commission
on May 8, 2006 and published at 71 FR 31131, June 1, 2006. IP Relay is
a form of text-based telecommunications relay service (TRS) that uses
the Internet to allow individuals with hearing and/or speech
disabilities to communicate with other individuals. The Bureau remains
concerned that individuals who do not have a hearing or speech
disability may be continuing to misuse IP Relay by, for example,
calling merchants to place orders using fake, stolen, or otherwise
invalid credit cards. Such abuse not only drains the TRS Fund that
supports these services, but also harms legitimate consumers whose
calls are rejected by individuals and businesses that have been the
victims of such misuse. The Bureau believes that a refreshed record
will better enable the Commission to take timely and appropriate action
to address these problems.
As the 2006 FNPRM explained, IP Relay affords users a degree of
anonymity that can facilitate fraudulent activity. The 2006 FNPRM
sought comment on ways to curb fraudulent calls via IP Relay, including
requiring user registration and permitting relay providers to screen
and terminate fraudulent IP Relay calls.
Since the 2006 FNPRM was adopted, the Commission has undertaken a
number of measures to combat misuse of the IP Relay program. Most
significantly, in June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system
in which users of iTRS, including IP Relay, are assigned ten-digit
telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and iTRS
users with disabilities are registered with their provider of choice
(default provider). The Commission expressed its expectation that the
registration of iTRS users with a default provider and the requirement
for each user to provide a ``Registered Location'' would reduce the
misuse of IP Relay. See 73 FR 41286, July 18, 2008. The Commission also
sought comment on whether additional steps were needed to curtail
illegitimate calls made through this service. See 73 FR 41307, July 18,
2008.
In December 2008, the Commission adopted a second iTRS numbering
Order, published at 73 FR 79683, December 30, 2008, addressing IP Relay
and video relay service (VRS). Among other things, the Commission:
Directed iTRS providers to ``implement a reasonable means
of verifying registration and eligibility information,'' including the
consumer's name and mailing address, before issuing the consumer a ten-
digit telephone number. The Commission provided the following examples
of what such verification could include: ``(1) Sending a postcard to
the mailing address provided by the consumer, for return to the default
Internet-based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on-camera ID checks
during registration; or (3) other verification processes similar to
those performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions
(such as banks and credit card companies).''
Directed that such registration be accompanied by consumer
education and outreach efforts designed to inform iTRS users of the
importance of providing accurate registration information.
Limited eligibility to receive ten-digit numbers for iTRS
use to people who have a hearing or speech disability and directed
provider verification procedures to include a self-certification
component requiring consumers to verify that they have a medically
recognized hearing or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS.
In April 2011, the Commission adopted several additional measures
to combat relay fraud and abuse. See 76 FR 24393, May 2, 2011 and 76 FR
24437, May 2, 2011. Among those measures that apply to IP Relay were a
requirement for all TRS providers to submit to Commission-directed
audits, a mandate for iTRS providers to retain, for five years, call
detail records and other records supporting claims for payment,
whistleblower protection rules for provider employees and contractors,
and a requirement that a senior executive of a TRS provider certify,
under penalty of perjury, to the validity of minutes and data submitted
to the TRS Fund administrator.
Lastly, in July 2011, the Commission adopted new certification
rules applicable to iTRS providers, authorized on-site visits to the
premises of applicants for iTRS certification and certified iTRS
providers to confirm compliance with Commission rules, and set forth
new requirements for providers to submit documentary evidence of their
ability to comply with the Commission's TRS rules, to provide annual
updates to their certification application information, and to certify,
under penalty of perjury, as to the accuracy of their certification
applications and their annual compliance filings to the Commission. See
76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011 and 76 FR 47476, August 5, 2011.
Refreshing the Record. Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) mandates the provision of TRS for individuals with hearing
and speech disabilities that is functionally equivalent to voice
telephone services. This functional equivalency standard has served as
the touchstone for the Commission in determining how TRS providers must
provide services to consumers: the goal is to have the features,
functions, and capabilities of these services mirror voice telephone
services as closely as possible. To this end, Commission rulings have
characterized CAs as ``transparent conduits'' to a relay call,
frequently equated the connection to a CA with accessing a dial tone,
and mandated confidentiality protections. Calls that are not legitimate
relay calls, however, are not entitled to these transparency and
confidentiality protections. Moreover, when there is concern that fraud
or misuse infects a relay service, the Commission has an obligation to
consider actions necessary to preserve the integrity and sustainability
of the service.
Despite the Commission's persistent efforts to combat the
fraudulent use of IP Relay, the Bureau remains concerned that such
misuse may persist. For example, although the Commission directed iTRS
providers to implement reasonable methods to verify registration and
eligibility information submitted by IP Relay users, the methods that
providers currently are using may not be reasonable and may not be
achieving the desired goal of ensuring that only eligible or qualified
persons are using the service. Accordingly, the Commission may need to
impose additional and more specific requirements with respect to both
[[Page 11999]]
authenticating initial registrants and verifying users of the service
in order to ensure that providers are in fact taking reasonable steps
needed to curb IP Relay misuse. Such steps are necessary to protect the
integrity of the IP Relay program so that this service remains a viable
and a valuable communication tool for Americans who wish to use it.
Therefore, the Bureau believes it is necessary to refresh the record in
this proceeding to help the Commission better understand what
additional tools are needed to aid the Commission in these efforts.
To this end, the Bureau seeks additional comment to refresh the
2006 FNPRM record and regarding IP Relay generally on the following
matters:
The effectiveness of current measures to verify
eligibility information for registration. In this regard, the Bureau
asks commenters to provide information about methods of verification
currently in use to authenticate the identity and eligibility of an
individual seeking to obtain a ten-digit number. The Bureau
specifically seeks comment on the extent to which IP Relay providers
are utilizing one or more of the following verification procedures when
registering such individuals: (1) Sending a postcard to the mailing
address provided by the consumer, for return to the default IP Relay
provider; (2) utilizing in-person or on-camera ID checks during
registration; (3) utilizing verification processes similar to those
performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as
banks and credit card companies); or (4) utilizing an alternative means
of verification approved in advance by the Commission. The Bureau asks
providers to comment on the effectiveness of each of these or any other
verification measures that they use to screen out illegitimate IP Relay
users, as well as how they assess the effectiveness of such measures.
The Bureau further asks whether individuals outside of the U.S. have
been obtaining IP Relay access numbers or otherwise using this service
unlawfully, as well as to what extent current provider practices enable
or contribute to the registration of ineligible IP Relay users. The
Bureau also seeks input on what additional steps should be taken, or
technology implemented, to prevent the registration and use of IP Relay
by these and other ineligible individuals?
Other verification processes, such as commercial
verification services, that are available and may be appropriate to
more effectively screen out ineligible individuals who attempt to
register as IP Relay users. For example, the Bureau notes that the
Commission has in place verification procedures for other programs,
such as those recently adopted for Lifeline assistance. Specifically,
in light of evidence demonstrating that consumer self-certification of
program-based eligibility does not effectively prevent ineligible
consumers from enrolling in Lifeline, the Commission amended its rules
to require providers to confirm a consumer's eligibility for Lifeline
with documentation. Would utilization of similar or analogous
procedures be appropriate and necessary to verify eligibility in the IP
Relay context? The Bureau seeks specific comment on whether a database
would be effective in this context, and on what types of documentation
would be available and appropriate to establish the eligibility of
registrants for IP Relay. Are there other governmental programs that
may serve as a model for verifying the eligibility of individuals who
seek to use IP Relay?
Although the iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice
directed providers to verify each caller's registration prior to
completing non-emergency calls, it also directed providers to handle a
call from a newly registered user immediately, even if the provider had
not completed the process of verifying the caller's information,
assigning the caller a new ten-digit number, and provisioning that
number to the iTRS database. Should the Commission continue to permit
temporary authorization for a user to place IP Relay calls while
verification of the caller is taking place, in light of the apparent
misuse of IP Relay? Or should the Commission prohibit temporary
authorization for this service (other than for the handling of
emergency calls)?
To the extent the Commission adopts specific user
verification procedures, should it require IP Relay providers to
revalidate all of their currently registered users?
Whether IP Relay providers and their CAs should be given
the discretion to determine, on a case-by-case basis, that a call is
not a legitimate TRS call, and to block, terminate, or refuse to handle
the non-TRS call. Are there ways for an IP Relay provider and its CAs
to determine when an IP Relay call is fraudulent through identifiable
indicia? If an illegitimate call (i.e., one that the CA has determined
is not a TRS call) has been placed to a merchant, should the provider
or CA be permitted to alert the merchant that the call is believed to
be fraudulent, or take other steps to prevent the misuse of IP Relay?
Whether advanced call tracking mechanisms--e.g.,
geolocation systems--are available for the purpose of accurately
determining whether a particular IP Relay call is originating from or
terminating to an international location. If available, can such call-
tracking mechanisms identify international IP Relay calls, even when a
party to the IP Relay call is attempting to disguise the IP Relay call
as a domestic U.S. call by, for example, re-directing the call through
a domestic IP address? The Bureau also seeks comment on the extent to
which providers are using tracking mechanisms to determine where IP
Relay calls originate.
At present, Commission rules require providers to maintain
and submit various records of the relay calls for which they seek
reimbursement. However, the Commission's rules also prohibit CAs from
keeping records of the content of any conversation beyond the duration
of a call. For calls placed with IP Relay providers that are determined
by a provider to be illegitimate, what documentation, if any, should
the provider be required to maintain and submit to the Commission
regarding such calls to facilitate better program oversight?
Whether more rigorous user authentication on a per-call
basis should be employed to combat misuse of IP Relay. If so, what form
would this take? Would such an approach enable providers to
authenticate callers who dial-around to a different IP Relay provider
more effectively? Would the use of a common resource, such as a third-
party database or service, enable providers to authenticate dial-around
callers more effectively? Would more rigorous user authentication on a
per-call basis address current vulnerabilities to IP address spoofing?
How could such an approach be extended to popular messaging services,
such as AIM and Google Talk, that callers might use to access IP Relay?
Under the Commission's iTRS registration process, IP Relay
users select a default relay provider for the handling of their IP
Relay calls, but are permitted to dial-around to a different IP Relay
provider at any time. To what extent is this dial-around feature used
or desirable for IP Relay calls? Under the Commission's rules, IP Relay
providers must answer 85 percent of all calls within 10 seconds,
averaged daily. Does this rapid response time negate the need for a
dial-around feature? To what extent is the dial-around feature
contributing to relay misuse? If the Commission discontinues allowing
the dial-around feature, should an exception be made for emergency
calls?
Whether providers maintain lists of illegitimate users
whose numbers are
[[Page 12000]]
blocked from using IP relay, and, if so, the approximate number of such
users and the extent to which providers share this information with one
another. Should the Commission require providers to share such
information or to take additional measures to ensure that all providers
have the same information, e.g., by creating a central database of
barred users and/or blocked numbers/addresses?
The extent to which IP Relay fraud or misuse exists, and
specifically, the extent to which it has worsened (or has been
ameliorated) since the Commission adopted its iTRS numbering and user
registration requirements. The Bureau also seeks updated information on
any patterns associated with such misuse--for example, whether it is
more prevalent at specific times of the day, week, month, and year--as
well as the nature of this misuse.
Whether specific audit procedures, in addition to those
that the Commission has already authorized, are needed to identify and
curb IP Relay misuse.
The extent to which IP Relay is currently being used by
consumers with and without disabilities, and whether it is meeting a
need that is not fulfilled by other forms of relay, or other text-based
services. When IP Relay was approved in 2002, IP-based captioned
telephone relay service was not available to consumers and VRS was
typically available in community settings only (e.g., libraries,
consumer organizations). In addition, purely text-based services such
as on-line ordering and text messaging were not as commonly used as
they are today. To what extent do other forms of relay services, as
well as text messaging and other electronic messaging services, now
serve as adequate or preferred alternatives to IP Relay?
Federal Communications Commission.
Karen Peltz Strauss,
Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2012-4658 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P