[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43538-43542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18093]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123; FCC 12-71]
Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech Disabilities
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopts a measure that
prohibits Internet-Protocol (IP) Relay providers from handling non-
emergency calls made by new IP Relay registrants as guest users prior
to taking reasonable measures to verify their registration information.
The Commission's action is intended to eliminate abuse that has
resulted from unauthorized users having access to IP Relay services
prior to verification of their registration information.
DATES: Effective July 25, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Disability Rights Office, at (202) 418-
2235 or email Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Misuse
of Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service; Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities, First Report and Order (Order), document FCC 12-
71, adopted on June 28, 2012 and released on June 29, 2012, in CG
Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123. The full text of document FCC 12-71 will
be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (800) 378-3160, fax: (202) 488-5563,
or Internet: www.bcpiweb.com. Document FCC 12-71 can also be downloaded
in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
Document FCC 12-71 does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, it does not contain any new or
modified information collection burden for small business concerns with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Synopsis
1. In document FCC 12-71, the Commission takes an important step to
curb the misuse of IP Relay by prohibiting IP Relay providers from
handling non-emergency calls made by new IP Relay registrants prior to
taking reasonable measures to verify their registration information. In
taking this action, the Commission underscores its ongoing commitment
to ensuring that Internet-based telecommunications relay services
(iTRS) provide the communication access intended by Congress in section
225 of the Communications Act, while eliminating fraud and abuse in
this program. See Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service
Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Second Report and Order, FCC 11-118;
published at 76 FR 47469, August 5, 2011 and at 76 FR 47476, August 5,
2011 (iTRS Certification Order) (defining iTRS to mean all forms of
telecommunications relay service (TRS) in which an individual with a
hearing or speech disability uses an Internet connection with a
communications assistant (CA) to make calls, including Video Relay
Service (VRS), IP Relay, and IP captioned telephone service (IP CTS)).
VRS uses video over a broadband Internet connection to allow a person
who uses
[[Page 43539]]
sign language to communicate with another party through a CA.
2. IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet to
allow individuals with hearing and/or speech disabilities to
communicate with other individuals. In 2006, the Commission initiated a
rulemaking proceeding to address the misuse of IP Relay and VRS.
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Misuse of Internet
Protocol (IP) Relay Service and Video Relay Service, CG Docket No. 03-
123, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 06-58; published at 71
FR 31131, 2006 (2006 FNPRM). The Commission took that action in part
because of concerns that individuals without a hearing or speech
disability were using the anonymity of the IP Relay service to call
merchants and place orders using fake, stolen, or otherwise invalid
credit cards. The 2006 FNPRM sought comment on ways to curb fraudulent
calls made via IP Relay, including requirements for user registration
and rule changes that would permit relay providers to screen and
terminate such calls.
3. Since the 2006 FNPRM, the Commission has undertaken a number of
measures to combat the misuse of iTRS. Most relevant to the instant
proceeding, in June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system
requiring IP Relay and VRS users to be assigned ten-digit telephone
numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and registered with
their provider of choice (default provider). Telecommunications Relay
Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and
Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-196, Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-151; published at 73
FR 41286, July 18, 2008 and at 73 FR 41307, July 18, 2008 (iTRS
Numbering Order I). The Commission explained that such registration and
the requirement for each user to provide a ``Registered Location''
would reduce the misuse of IP Relay. The Commission also sought comment
on whether additional steps were needed to curtail illegitimate calls
made through this service.
4. In December 2008, the Commission adopted a second iTRS numbering
Order in which it directed IP Relay and VRS providers to ``implement a
reasonable means of verifying registration and eligibility
information,'' including the consumer's name and mailing address,
before issuing a ten-digit telephone number to new or existing users.
Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; E911 Requirements for
IP-Enabled Service Providers, CG Docket No. 03-123, WC Docket No. 05-
196, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 08-275;
published at 73 FR 79683, December 30, 2008 (iTRS Numbering Order II).
The Commission provided the following examples of what such
verification could include: ``(1) Sending a postcard to the mailing
address provided by the consumer, for return to the default Internet-
based TRS provider; (2) in-person or on-camera ID checks during
registration; or (3) other verification processes similar to those
performed by voice telephone providers and other institutions (such as
banks and credit card companies).'' The Commission further directed
providers to include in their verification procedures a requirement for
consumers to self-certify that they have a medically recognized hearing
or speech disability necessitating their use of TRS. The Commission
expected that ``these measures [would] reduce the misuse of Internet-
based TRS by those who may take advantage of the anonymity currently
afforded users, particularly IP Relay users, without unduly burdening
legitimate Internet-based TRS consumers seeking to obtain ten-digit
telephone numbers.'' The Commission added, however, that ``to the
extent technically feasible, Internet-based TRS providers must allow
newly registered users to place calls immediately,'' even before
completing the verification of such individuals. In permitting such
temporary use of iTRS by new registrants, the Commission responded to
comments by a coalition of consumer groups, who were concerned that
legitimate IP Relay users would be cut off from service during the
transition to the new ten-digit numbering and registration system. In
order to enable users to make calls under this ``guest user''
procedure, providers have been giving users temporary ten-digit numbers
and provisioning these numbers to the iTRS Directory. These numbers
have been allowed to remain valid for the purpose of making IP Relay
calls until such time that the users' identifying information is
authenticated or rejected.
5. In October 2009, the Commission issued a Public Notice reminding
iTRS providers of their obligation to implement the measures discussed
above by November 12, 2009. Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Reminds Video Relay Service (VRS) and Internet Protocol (IP) Relay
Service Providers of their Outreach Obligations and Clarifies their
Call Handling Obligations for Unregistered Users after the November 12,
2009, Ten-Digit Numbering Registration Deadline, CG Docket No. 03-123,
WC Docket No. 05-196, Public Notice, DA 09-2261; 24 FCC Rcd 12877,
October 21, 2009 (iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice). Because
these were new requirements that would have a direct impact on consumer
use of the IP Relay program, the iTRS Numbering Implementation Public
Notice again directed each provider to handle calls from newly
registered users immediately, even if the provider had not fully
completed the process of verifying the caller's information, assigning
the caller a new ten-digit number, and provisioning that number to the
iTRS database. The iTRS Numbering Implementation Public Notice did not
eliminate the requirement for providers to implement a reasonable
process for verifying registration information provided by new users.
6. In April 2011, the Commission adopted several additional
measures to combat IP Relay fraud and abuse, including a requirement
for all TRS providers to submit to Commission-directed audits, a
mandate for iTRS providers to retain, for five years, call detail
records and other records supporting claims for payment, whistleblower
protection rules for provider employees and contractors, and a
requirement that a senior executive of a TRS provider certify, under
penalty of perjury, to the validity of minutes and data submitted to
the TRS Fund administrator. Structure and Practices of the Video Relay
Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-54; published at 76 FR 24393, May
2, 2011 and at 76 FR 24437, May 2, 2011 (VRS Fraud Order). The
Commission followed these measures in July 2011 with the adoption of
stricter certification rules for iTRS providers, authorization for on-
site visits to the premises of applicants for iTRS certification and
certified iTRS providers, revised notification requirements for
providers to alert the Commission about substantive program changes,
and a mandate for providers to certify, under penalty of perjury, as to
the accuracy of their certification applications and their annual
compliance filings to the Commission. See (iTRS Certification Order).
7. Notwithstanding the various measures noted above, concerns about
[[Page 43540]]
the continued abuse of the IP Relay system prompted the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau) to issue a Refresh Public Notice
on February 13, 2012, to refresh the record initiated by the 2006 FNPRM
on matters pertaining to IP Relay misuse. Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau Seeks to Refresh the Record Regarding Misuse of Internet
Protocol Relay Service, CG Docket Nos. 12-38 and 03-123, Public Notice,
DA 12-208; published at 77 FR 11997, February 28, 2012 (Refresh Public
Notice). Among other things, in the Refresh Public Notice, the Bureau
expressed concern that current methods used by iTRS providers to verify
registration and eligibility information submitted by IP Relay users
may not be ``reasonable'' as required by the Commission's rules, and
that the Commission ``may need to impose additional and more specific
requirements * * * to curb IP Relay misuse.''
8. Among the issues raised in the Refresh Public Notice was whether
the Commission should continue its procedure adopted in iTRS Numbering
Order II of requiring IP Relay providers to permit newly registered
users to place calls prior to the completion of a provider's user
verification process, given the potential for misuse of IP Relay by
unverified registrants. The Commission now concludes that the record in
this proceeding supports the elimination of that procedure. Further,
given the record evidence, the Commission now prohibits granting such
temporary authorization for any IP Relay calls other than emergency
calls to 911 services.
9. Parties responding to the Refresh Public Notice overwhelmingly
agree that allowing new users to make IP Relay calls pending the
provider's verification of the user's registration information
contributes significantly to the misuse of IP Relay. Under this
procedure, commenters report, large numbers of fraudulent users have
easy access to the IP Relay system for extended periods of time before
verification is complete and access can be denied. As noted above, this
is because in order to make IP Relay calls as a guest user, the user is
given a ten-digit number that remains a valid number in the iTRS
database until such time that the user's identifying information is
authenticated or rejected. The Consumer Groups do not oppose ending
temporary authorization for unverified IP Relay non-emergency callers,
but advocate that the verification process should be completed within
72 hours.
10. The Commission concludes that a prohibition against temporary
authorization of IP Relay users is now necessary in order to curb the
fraud and abuse that has resulted from provider misuse of this
procedure. Specifically, although there may have been some value in
allowing unverified users to make calls for a short period of time
during the Commission's transition to the IP Relay registration system,
the Commission is concerned that reliance on the guest user procedure
has resulted in abuse of the IP Relay program by unauthorized IP Relay
users. In addition, the Commission is concerned that unverified users
have remained in the iTRS numbering directory--and made repeated IP
Relay calls--for extended periods of time, despite the obligation of IP
Relay providers to institute procedures to verify the accuracy of
registration information.
11. Moreover, any rationale for initially permitting temporary user
authorization--i.e., to prevent the exclusion of users who were already
using IP Relay service and were either unfamiliar with the Commission's
new registration process or had not yet registered--is greatly
diminished because considerable time has passed since the transition
period for registering ended on November 12, 2009. Hamilton Relay, Inc.
notes that the vast majority of legitimate users have already been
registered, and the Commission is less concerned that legitimate users
will be cut off from IP Relay service. At the same time, the Commission
has significant concerns about the extent to which the IP Relay program
has fallen prey to abuse. As noted above, IP Relay abuse has placed
unnecessary costs on the TRS Fund and has resulted in businesses
rejecting IP Relay calls from legitimate users. In weighing the
Consumer Groups' interest in enabling legitimate new users to obtain
reasonably prompt access to IP Relay Service against the record
evidence of significant problems of misuse caused by the guest user
procedure, the Commission believes that on balance, the clear and
critical need to ensure the integrity of the IP Relay program by
requiring that users are fully verified prior to receiving service
outweighs any residual risk of harm from the temporary deferral of
service to a small number of new legitimate users. With respect to the
Consumer Groups' specific recommendation that the Commission eliminate
the guest user procedure only if the Commission requires that the
verification process be completed within 72 hours, the Commission
believes that on balance, ensuring that users are fully and effectively
verified is more critical to restoring the integrity of the IP Relay
program than is placing a time limit on the verification process. The
Commission also believes that without the option to register guest
users, IP Relay providers will have a strong incentive to expeditiously
complete their verification processes. Nevertheless, the Commission
will continue to review the matter of timing as the Commission
considers the adoption of more specific IP Relay verification
requirements.
12. The prohibition against temporary authorization of IP Relay
users that the Commission now adopts requires that until an IP Relay
provider verifies a new IP Relay user in accordance with the
Commission's standards as set forth in the Commission's rules and
requirements, it will not be permitted to deem such user as
``registered'' for purposes of Sec. 64.611(b) of the Commission's
rules, and will be prohibited from: (1) Handling the user's IP Relay
calls other than 911 emergency calls; (2) assigning the user a ten-
digit number; or (3) provisioning such number to the iTRS Directory.
The Commission further expects default providers to periodically review
the ten-digit numbers that they place in the iTRS numbering directory,
for the purpose of deleting numbers that have been assigned to users
that ultimately are not ``registered'' or that are otherwise associated
with fraudulent calling practices. Such actions will ensure that only
verified users have active numbers and prevent ineligible users from
using the services of other providers who are unaware of a default
provider's ultimate decision to reject user authorization. The
Commission's objective is to ensure that the IP Relay program serves
only legitimate users. In addition, because there will be fewer calls
from fraudulent callers, these actions will benefit legitimate users by
reducing the incentive of recipients of IP Relay calls to reject these
calls. The Commission notes that this is only one of a series of
actions the Commission intends to take in this docket to curb IP Relay
fraud and abuse. The Commission's overarching goal is to ensure that
providers take the steps needed to curb IP Relay misuse, so that this
service can remain a viable and valuable communication tool for
Americans who need it.
Effective Date
13. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that a
substantive rule cannot become effective earlier than 30 days after the
required publication or service of the rule, except ``as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause
[[Page 43541]]
found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d). See also 47 CFR
1.427(a). As discussed above, the record in this proceeding, including
the comments filed by IP Relay providers, has demonstrated the
prevalence of misuse of IP Relay and supports the immediate
implementation of a measure--the elimination of temporary user
authorization for non-emergency calls--that could substantially reduce
such misuse. This measure should produce the immediate benefit of
reducing payments for illegitimate minutes from the TRS Fund. The
Commission further expects that its action will have a minimal adverse
impact, if any, on the provision of IP Relay service to legitimate
users, given the considerable time that has passed since the transition
period for registering ended on November 12, 2009. Rather, the measure
the Commission adopts will benefit such users by reducing the incentive
of recipients of IP Relay calls to reject calls from legitimate users
because there will be fewer calls from fraudulent callers. With respect
to the technical feasibility of instituting this measure immediately,
the Commission notes that at least one provider has stated from its
perspective, that ``a prohibition of `guest access' could be
implemented on an immediate basis, while another has urged the
Commission to `close the loophole immediately.' '' Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists for making these measures
effective immediately July 25, 2012.
14. In document FCC 12-71, the Commission takes action intended to
immediately curb the misuse of IP Relay by prohibiting providers of IP
Relay from providing service (other than handling emergency calls to
911 services) to new registrants until a new user's registration
information is verified. It is the Commission's intention to adopt
additional measures addressing misuse of IP Relay in future orders.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
15. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C.
603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated
in the 2006 FNPRM. The Commission sought comment on the proposal in the
2006 FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA, of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
the 2006 FNPRM. No comments were received on the IRFA. This Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 5 U.S.C.
604.
16. Providers of TRS, mandated by Title IV of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 225 of the
Communications Act), relay telephone calls so that individuals who are
deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have speech disabilities can
engage in communication by wire or radio with other individuals in a
manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of hearing
individuals who do not have speech disabilities to communicate using
voice communication services by wire or radio. See 47 U.S.C. 225(a)(3).
Because IP Relay Service offers consumers anonymity as the call is
placed via the Internet, this service has become subject to abuse.
Among other things, persons have been using IP Relay to purchase goods
from merchants using stolen or fraudulent credit cards. Such misuse is
harmful both to the merchant who is defrauded and to legitimate relay
users who find that their relay calls are rejected by merchants. The
Commission is also concerned that the rapid and steady increase in the
size of the Interstate TRS Fund may in part be a result of such misuse
of IP Relay.
17. The 2006 FNPRM sought comment on ways to prevent the misuse of
IP Relay, including among other things, a requirement to register IP
Relay users. In June 2008, the Commission adopted a mandatory system in
which users of iTRS, including IP Relay, are assigned ten-digit
telephone numbers linked to the North American Numbering Plan and iTRS
users with disabilities are registered with their provider of choice
(default provider). The Commission also required IP Relay providers to
handle calls from a newly registered user immediately, even if the
provider had not completed the process of verifying the caller's
information.
18. In the Refresh Public Notice, the Commission sought comment on
whether it should prohibit temporary authorization for a user to place
IP Relay calls, other than emergency calls, while verification of the
caller is taking place.
19. Document FCC 12-71 is intended to curb the misuse of IP Relay
by prohibiting providers of IP Relay from handling non-emergency IP
Relay calls for new registrants until their registration information is
verified. The Commission's decision today helps ensure that the iTRS
program provides the communication services intended by Congress in
section 225 of the Communications Act, while eliminating fraud and
abuse. No party filing comments in this proceeding responded to the
IRFA, and no party filing comments in this proceeding otherwise argued
that the policies and rules proposed in this proceeding would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules. 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3). The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by
reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
21. As noted above, this document prohibits providers of IP Relay
from providing service (other than handling emergency calls to 911) to
new registrants until their registration information is verified. As a
result, the Commission believes that the entities that may be affected
by the proposed rules are only those TRS providers that offer IP Relay.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of
``small entity'' specifically directed toward IP Relay providers. The
closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, for which the small business size standard
is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 13 CFR 121.201,
NAICS Code 517110 (2007). Currently, there are five TRS providers that
are authorized by the Commission to offer IP Relay. One or two of these
entities may be small businesses under the SBA size standard.
22. Document FCC 12-71 does not impose any new reporting or record
keeping requirements. Although this document requires IP Relay
providers to refuse IP Relay service to individuals who are not deemed
qualified to receive IP Relay service, IP Relay providers are already
required to refuse IP Relay service to unqualified individuals. While
the new requirements expand the circumstances under which individuals
are to be denied IP Relay service initially, they do not impose new
compliance requirements on small entities.
23. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives, specific to small businesses, that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the
[[Page 43542]]
following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.'' 5
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4).
24. The Commission considers the requirements adopted in this
document as a means of achieving the public policy goals of ensuring
that TRS can provide functionally equivalent communication access and
preventing the misuse of IP Relay. As noted above, although the impact
of this document will be for IP Relay providers to refuse IP Relay
service to new IP relay users who are not qualified to receive IP Relay
service, IP Relay providers are already required to refuse this service
to unqualified individuals. Since the new requirements change the
application of existing compliance requirements, but do not impose new
compliance requirements on small entities, the Commission finds that it
has minimized significant economic impact on small entities. The
alternatives of either retaining the requirement that providers of IP
Relay handle non-emergency IP Relay calls for new registrants prior to
verification of registration information or permitting the handling of
such calls at the election of the provider, would not curb the misuse
of IP Relay by new registrants whose registration information--due to
the preexisting guest user procedure--still requires verification.
25. The Commission notes that by reducing the misuse of IP Relay,
these new requirements will lessen an adverse economic impact on small
businesses. Specifically, the new requirements will protect many small
businesses that may be affected by illegitimate IP Relay calls. For
instance, small businesses are more vulnerable to illegitimate IP Relay
calls involving fraudulent credit card purchases because they often are
not aware that the credit cards are being illegally used or are not
equipped to verify the credit card numbers. Because these new
requirements will prevent unqualified individuals from placing IP Relay
calls, these requirements will have the additional effect of reducing
the incidence of credit card fraud.
26. There are no Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the new rules.
Congressional Review Act
27. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 12-71 in a
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Ordering Clauses
28. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i) and (j), 225, and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j),
225, and 303(r), and Sec. 1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.427, document FCC 12-71 is adopted.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18093 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P