**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CG Docket No. 03-123         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| 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          | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: May 03, 2006 Released: May 08, 2006**

**Comment Date: (30 days after publication in the Federal Register)\
Reply Comment Date: (45 days after publication in the Federal
Register)**

By the Commission:

# introduction

1.  In this *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice)* we address
    the misuse of the two Internet-based forms of telecommunications
    relay service (TRS),[^1] Internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service and
    Video Relay Service (VRS), and seek comment on possible changes to
    the TRS regulations to curtail their misuse.

# BACKGROUND

2.  IP Relay is a form of text-based TRS that uses the Internet, rather
    than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN).[^2] VRS is a form
    of TRS that allows communication via American Sign Language (ASL)
    using video equipment.[^3] Currently, if IP Relay and VRS are
    offered in compliance with the TRS mandatory minimum standards,[^4]
    the costs of providing the services are reimbursed from the
    Interstate TRS Fund (Fund), which is overseen by the Commission.[^5]

## Telecommunications Relay Service

3.  Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),[^6]
    which added Section 225 to the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the Act), requires the Commission to ensure that TRS is
    available, to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner,
    to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the United
    States.[^7] The statute requires that TRS offers persons with
    hearing and speech disabilities access to the telephone system that
    is "functionally equivalent" to voice telephone services.[^8]
    Congress recognized that persons with hearing and speech
    disabilities have long experienced barriers in their ability to
    access, utilize, and benefit from telecommunications services.[^9]
    Congress found TRS necessary to "bridge the gap between the
    communications-impaired telephone user and the community at large,"
    and emphasized that to "participate actively in society, one must
    have the ability to call friends, family, business\[es\] and
    employers."[^10] Since the implementation of a uniform nationwide
    system of TRS in 1993, the Commission has addressed issues relating
    to its provision, regulation, and compensation.[^11]

4.  When Section 225 was enacted, and TRS was implemented, TRS calls
    were placed using a text telephone device (TTY) connected to the
    PSTN. In March 2000, however, the Commission recognized VRS as a
    form of TRS, providing an additional means for persons with hearing
    disabilities who use ASL to have access to the telephone
    system.[^12] VRS requires the use of a broadband Internet connection
    between the VRS user and the communications assistant (CA), which
    allows communication in ASL via a video link. The CA, in turn,
    places an outbound telephone call to a hearing person. During the
    call, the CA communicates in ASL with the person with a hearing
    disability and by voice with the hearing person. As a result, the
    conversation between the two end users flows in near real time and
    in a faster manner than with a TTY or text-based TRS call. VRS
    therefore provides a degree of "functional equivalency" that is not
    attainable with text-based TRS, by allowing those persons whose
    primary language is ASL to communicate in sign language, just as a
    hearing person communicates in, *e.g.,* spoken English. Although the
    Commission has not made VRS a mandatory service,[^13] it has
    encouraged its development.[^14] In the past few years, use of VRS
    has grown tremendously.[^15]

5.  In April 2002, the Commission recognized IP Relay.[^16] IP Relay
    calls are text-based calls. Rather than using a TTY and the PSTN,
    the user connects to the TRS facility via the Internet using a
    computer, web phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), or any other
    IP-capable device. When the IP Relay user is connected to the IP
    Relay service provider, the user is immediately routed to a CA, who
    then makes the outbound call to the hearing person and relays the
    call between the parties in the same way that TTY-based calls are
    handled.[^17] IP Relay, like VRS, has become very popular because
    the user can make a relay call with any computer (or similar device)
    connected to the Internet, rather than only with a dedicated TTY.

## Misuse of IP Relay

6.  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 calls.[^18] Although such conduct may be
    illegal, because IP Relay calls reach the relay center via the
    Internet, and the calling party and the CA 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.[^19] 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.[^20]

7.  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.[^21] In addition,
    we are concerned about the impact that such misuse may have on the
    Fund.[^22] 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.

8.  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.[^23] 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.[^24] 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 significantly
    diminished.[^25]

9.  The Commission also noted the present difficulty in preventing
    fraudulent purchase calls because of the nature and purpose of
    TRS.[^26] Due to the transparent nature of the CA's role in handling
    a TRS call, the CA may not interfere with the conversation.[^27] 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.[^28] The current TRS
    regulations, for example, prohibit CAs from refusing calls,[^29] and
    generally prevent CAs from disclosing or keeping records of the
    contents of any call.[^30] In addition, the regulations prohibit the
    CAs from intentionally altering a relayed conversation,[^31] and
    require them to relay all calls verbatim.[^32] 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).[^33] The Commission has also sought comment on the
    related issue of the abuse of CAs during IP Relay and VRS calls.
    [^34]

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

10. We continue to receive anecdotal evidence that VRS is being used in
    circumstances that should 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).[^35] 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."[^36]

# Discussion

## Misuse of IP Relay

11. We seek comment on whether we 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.[^37] At the same time, we recognize that permitting CAs to
    step out of their role as invisible conduits in a call may create
    tension with the functional equivalency principle. We invite comment
    on steps the Commission might take, consistent with Section 225, 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.

12. More particularly, we seek 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. We also seek comment
    on whether we should adopt rules to guide the exercise of that
    discretion.

13. Moreover, we seek 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.[^38] We
    seek comment on whether there other ways in which a provider may
    determine if a particular call is not a legitimate relay call.

14. We also seek 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?

15. We further seek 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, we seek comment
    on 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
    we 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)(1)(F)?[^39] 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?

16. Finally, we request 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.[^40] We also request
    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

17. We seek comment on whether, and if so, how, we 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?

18. We further seek 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 we
    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?

19. We also seek 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?

20. We further seek 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 we 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)(1)(F)?[^41] 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?

21. Finally, we request 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.[^42] We also request
    parties to provide any additional information that may be relevant
    to our resolution of this issue.

# procedural matters

22. *Comments and Reply Comments.* Pursuant to sections 1.415, 1.419,
    and 1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419,
    1.430, interested parties may file comments on or before 30 days
    after publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register, and
    reply comments on or before 45 days after publication of this
    *Notice* in the Federal Register. All filings should refer to CG
    Docket No. 03-123. Comments may be filed using the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
    copies.[^43] For additional information on this proceeding, please
    contact Greg Hlibok in the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau,
    Disability Rights Office, at*:* (866) 410-5787 x16757 (Voice),
    or (202) 418-0431 (TTY).

23. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>.
    Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
    In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
    their full name, postal service mailing address, and the applicable
    docket number: CG Docket No. 03-123. Parties may also submit an
    electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfshelp@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body
    of the message: "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form
    and instructions will be sent in reply. You also may obtain a copy
    of the ASCII Electronic Transmittal Form (FORM-ET) at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/email.html>. 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 we continue to experience delays in receiving
    U.S. Postal Service mail).

24. For hand deliveries, the Commission\'s contractor, Best Copy and
    Printing, will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
    filings for the Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
    NE, Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this
    location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail
    should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office
    of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

25. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary
    of the substantive discussion and questions raised in the *Notice*.
    We further direct all interested parties to include the name of the
    filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their
    comments and reply comments. We strongly encourage that parties
    track the organization set forth in this *Notice* in order to
    facilitate our internal review process. Comments and reply comments
    must otherwise comply with section 1.48 and all other applicable
    sections of the Commission's rules.[^44]

26. To request materials in accessible formats (such as Braille, large
    print, electronic files, or 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). This Public Notice can
    also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format at
    \<<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb.dro>\>.

27. *Ex Parte Rules.* This matter shall be treated as a
    "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
    *ex parte* rules.[^45] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations
    are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must
    contain summaries of the substance of the presentations 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.[^46] Other requirements pertaining to oral and
    written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission's rules.

28. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*. With respect to this
    *Notice*, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is
    contained in the Appendix. As required by Section 603 of the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an IRFA of
    the expected impact on small entities of the proposals contained in
    the *Notice*. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.
    Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
    filed by the deadlines for comments on the *Notice* specified in
    paragraph 24 above. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*,
    including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.[^47]

29. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis.* This document
    contains proposed or modified information collection requirements.
    The Commission, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
    Public Law 104-13, and 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. Public and agency comments
    are due 60 days after date of publication of this Notice in the
    Federal Register. 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
    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]{.underline}* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
    on how we might "further reduce the information collection burden
    for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."

# ordering clauses

30. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, 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.

31. ![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.944444444444445e-4in"
    height="6.944444444444445e-4in"}IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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

    **APPENDIX: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

    1\. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^48] the
    Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small
    entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). 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
    FNPRM provided in paragraph 24 of the FNPRM. The Commission will
    send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^49] In
    addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
    published in the Federal Register.[^50]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2\. Providers of telecommunications relay services (TRS), mandated by
Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,[^51] relay
telephone calls between persons with hearing and speech disabilities and
persons without such disabilities. 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[^52] 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).[^53] Because IP Relay and VRS offer
consumers anonymity as 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 stolen or fraudulent credit cards. Such misuse is
harmful both to the merchant who is defrauded and to legitimate relay
users who may no longer be able to convince merchants to accept orders
via relay.

3\. 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 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 all calls
verbatim. [^54]

4\. More specifically, the 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 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 FNPRM also asks for an
alternative measure.

5\. The FNPRM provisionally proposes that, assuming that the IP Relay
provider and the 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)(F).[^55] The
FNPRM contemplates on any rule changes permitting IP Relay providers or
CAs to terminate apparently illegitimate calls be made permanently or
temporarily.

6\. The FNPRM seeks input on whether Section 705 of the Communications
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605, or any other federal or state statute,[^56] may
restrict the Commission's authority to take any of the remedial actions
discussed above. Finally, the FNPRM asks whether the providers that
terminated these apparently illegitimate calls should be compensated
from the Interstate TRS Fund nonetheless.

7\. In contemplating an appropriate measure to ensure that VRS is not
used as a substitute for an in-person interpreter of VRI service, the
FNPRM asks for recommendations on how the Commission can ensure that VRS
is not being misused. The 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
FNPRM also tentatively considers waiving or modifying certain TRS
regulations to enable VRS providers to ensure that the calls they handle
are legitimate.[^57]

8\. In addition, the proposed user registration is being contemplated as
an additional measure to curtail the misuse of VRS. The FNPRM
contemplates whether the rule change that permits VRS providers or CAs
to terminate apparently illegitimate calls should be permanent or
temporary. Finally, the FNPRM asks whether the providers that terminated
these apparently illegitimate calls should be compensated from the
Interstate TRS Fund nonetheless.

## Legal Basis

9\. The authority for the actions proposed in this 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](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS151&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[154(i)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS154&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)
and
[(j)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS154&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[201](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS201&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)-[205](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS205&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
[218](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS218&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06)
and
[225](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=47USCAS225&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06),
and Sections 64.601-64.608 of the Commission's regulations, 47 C.F.R. §§
64.601-64.608.

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

10\. 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.[^58] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^59] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^60] 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.[^61]

11\. As noted above, the 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, we believe
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.[^62] 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.[^63]

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance Requirements

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

13\. 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."[^64]

14\. The Commission considers the proposed rule changes in the 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 misuses of IP Relay and VRS services.
This FNPRM invites comment on a number of alternative means by which IP
Relay and VRS providers might undertake to curtail illegitimate calls.
For example, this FNPRM asks if the Commission should amend TRS rules to
allow providers the discretion to refuse or terminate illegitimate IP
Relay and VRS calls.

15\. The 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 rules. These alternatives could
mitigate any burden the proposed registration requirement might have on
small businesses.

16\. 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.

17\. The FNPRM contemplates requiring the providers to maintain records
of terminated calls, and seeks comment on what these records should
include. The FNPRM notes, however, that such a requirement might
conflict with the Commission's rules,[^65] and also seeks comment on
this issue. The FNPRM therefore contemplates that it may not be possible
to require providers to maintain any records.

18\. Further, the 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.

**F.** **Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rules**

19\. None.

[^1]: TRS, created by Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
    1990 (ADA), enables an individual with a hearing or speech
    disability to communicate by telephone or other device through the
    telephone system with a person without such a disability. *See* 47
    U.S.C. § 225(a)(3) (defining TRS); 47 C.F.R. § 64.601(14); *see
    generally* *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,
    19 FCC Rcd 12475, at 12479-12480, para. 3 n.18 (June 30, 2004)
    (*2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM*) (discussing how TRS works).

[^2]: *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, 17 FCC Rcd 7779 (April 22, 2002) (*IP Relay Declaratory
    Ruling*) (recognizing IP Relay as a form of TRS).

[^3]: *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, paras. 21-27 (March 6, 2000) (*Improved
    TRS Order & FNPRM*) (recognizing VRS as a form of TRS); 47 C.F.R. §
    64.601(17) (defining VRS).

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 64.604; *2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM,* 19
    FCC Rcd at 12547, para. 189.

[^5]: *Improved TRS Order & FNPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5152-5154, paras.
    23-27. Generally, the Interstate TRS Fund compensates providers for
    providing interstate TRS services, and the states compensate
    providers for providing intrastate TRS services. *Id.,* 15 FCC Rcd
    at 5154, para. 26. 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 & FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12561-12564,
    paras. 221-230 (IP Relay), at 12567, paras. 241-242 (VRS).

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 401, 104 Stat. 327, 336-69 (1990).

[^7]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

[^8]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^9]: *See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    12479-12480, para. 3 (discussing legislative history of Title IV of
    the ADA).

[^10]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 485, Pt. 2, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. at 129
    (1990) (House Report).

[^11]: *See generally 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at
    12479-12486, paras. 2-13 (overview of past TRS orders).

[^12]: *Improved TRS Order & FNPRM*, 15 FCC Rcd at 5152-5154, paras.
    21-27.

[^13]: That issue is pending before the Commission. *See 2004 TRS Report
    and Order & FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12567-12568, paras. 243-245.

[^14]: *Improved TRS Order & FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd at 5152, para. 22. On
    July 19, 2005, the Commission released two orders further addressing
    the provision of VRS. *See Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities,* CG Docket No. 03-123, CG Docket No. 98-67, Report and
    Order, 20 FCC Rcd 13165 (July 19, 2005) (*2005 VRS Order*)
    (addressing VRS speed of answer, VRS hours of service, and VRS
    Mail); *Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech
    Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* CC
    Docket No. 98-67, CG Docket No. 03-123, Order on Reconsideration, 20
    FCC Rcd 13140 (July 19, 2005) (*2005 ASL-to-Spanish VRS Order*)
    (recognizing ASL-to-Spanish VRS).

[^15]: The popularity of VRS is reflected in how rapidly it has grown.
    In January 2002, the first month VRS was generally offered, there
    were 7,215 minutes of use; in January 2003, there were 128,114
    minutes of use; in January 2004, there were 477,538 minutes of use;
    and in January 2005, there were 1,634,316 minutes of use; and in
    January 2006 there were over 3.2 million minutes of use of VRS.

[^16]: *See IP Relay Declaratory Ruling, supra.*

[^17]: *See generally Provision of Improved Telecommunications Relay
    Services and Speech-to-Speech Services For Individuals with Hearing
    and Speech Disabilities*, CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on
    Reconsideration, 18 FCC Rcd 4761, 4762, para. 3 n.11 (March 14,
    2003).

[^18]: *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)*.

[^19]: 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 225, but also has the effect of deterring the misuse of TRS
    because the relay provider knows where the inbound call is coming
    from.

[^20]: *See, e.g., Will You Accept This Call? Camera Retailers Should
    Beware of Relay Phone Scams*, Photo Marketing, Photo Marketing
    Assoc. International, May 1, 2004, 2004 WLNR 5835698.

[^21]: We note that merchants that accept telephone orders from voice
    telephone users may violate Title III of the ADA if they refuse to
    accept relay calls from persons with hearing and speech
    disabilities. *See, e.g., IP Relay Fraud Public Notice,* 19 FCC Rcd
    at 10741.

[^22]: Since IP Relay calls began being compensated in 2002, the size of
    the Fund has risen from approximately \$70 million to its present
    size of over \$440 million. In addition to IP Relay, much of that
    growth is attributable to the compensation of VRS. *See generally*
    [http://www.neca.org/media/0605RELAYRATESHISTORY.xls](http://www.neca.org/media/0605RELAYRATESHISTORY.xls  )
    (chart of history of Interstate TRS Fund size).

[^23]: *See IP Relay Fraud Public Notice*, *supra.*

[^24]: *IP Relay Fraud Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 10741.

[^25]: The Commission is aware of several recent media publications
    about the misuse of IP Relay to make fraudulent credit card
    purchases. *See, e.g.,* Communications Daily, Oct. 6, 2005, 2005
    WLNR 16160696; *Avoid Becoming a Victim of Telecommunications
    Fraud*, Sheboygan Press, Nov. 8, 2004, 2004 WLNR 15062327; *Virginia
    Beach, Va. Jewelry Seller Foils TTY-aided Credit Card Sca*m, The
    Virginian-Pilot, Sept. 30, 2004, 2004 WLNR 18104297; *Will You
    Accept This Call? Camera Retailers Should Beware of Relay Phone
    Scams*, Photo Marketing, Photo Marketing Assoc. International, May
    1, 2004, 2004 WLNR 5835698. *See also,* Internet Fraud Complaint
    Center, <http://www.ifccfbi.gov/strategy/wn040209.asp> (visited
    August 30, 2005).

[^26]: *IP Relay Fraud Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 10740-10741.

[^27]: *Id.*; *see also 2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd
    at12572, para. 256 (the CA is a "transparent entity who relays calls
    between the TRS users to provide functionally equivalent telephone
    service").

[^28]: *IP Relay Fraud Public Notice*, 19 FCC Rcd at 10740-10741.

[^29]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(3)(i).

[^30]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2)(i).

[^31]: 47 C.F.R. § 64.604(a)(2)(ii).

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: *See generally Telecommunications Services for Individuals with
    Hearing and Speech Disabilities,* *and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act of 1990,* CC Docket No. 90-571, Report and Order
    and Request for Comments, 6 FCC Rcd 4657, 4659-4661, paras. 13-19
    (July 26, 1991).

[^34]: *2004 TRS Report and Order & FNPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12571-12573,
    paras. 255-258.

[^35]: *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 (Sept. 7, 2005)
    *(VRS-VRI Public Notice*) (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 also Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities,* CC Docket No. 98-67, Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC
    Rcd 4054, at 4058, para. 10 (June 5, 2000); *2005 ASL-to-Spanish VRS
    Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 13154, para. 32 n.109.

[^36]: *VRS-VRI Public Notice* at 2.

[^37]: We note 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 & FNPRM,* 15 FCC Rcd 5140, at 5162-5165 paras.
    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,* 19 FCC Rcd at 12571-12573, paras. 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).

[^38]: *See, e.g., Will* *You Accept This Call? Camera Retailers Should
    Beware of Relay Phone Scams*, Photo Marketing, Photo Marketing
    Assoc. International, May 1, 2004, 2004 WLNR 5835698.

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(F) (prohibiting CAs from "keeping records
    of the content" of any call beyond the duration of the call).

[^40]: 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). We
    seek comment, for example, on whether Section 705 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.

[^41]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(F) (prohibiting CAs from "keeping records
    of the content" of any call beyond the duration of the call).

[^42]: *See* note 40, *supra.*

[^43]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    GC Docket No. 97-113, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11322, 11326,
    para. 8 (April 6, 1998).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.48.

[^45]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.200 *et seq*.

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^47]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

[^48]: *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,
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the
    CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
    1996 (SBREFA).

[^49]: *See* [5 U.S.C. §
    603(a)](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1000546&DocName=5USCAS603&FindType=L&AP=&mt=Westlaw&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.06).

[^50]: *See* *id.*

[^51]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225.

[^52]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3).

[^53]: *See* para. 9 of the FNPRM, *supra.*

[^54]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.604(a)(2)(i) & (ii), 64.604(a)(2)(ii).

[^55]: 47 U.S.C. § 225(d)(1)(F) (prohibiting CAs from "keeping records
    of the content" of any call beyond the duration of the call).

[^56]: *See*, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (which is noted in section 705).

[^57]: *See* para 18 of the FNPRM, *supra.*

[^58]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^59]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^60]: 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.\"

[^61]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^62]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517110.

[^63]: *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.

[^64]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) - (4).

[^65]: *See* paras 15, 20 of the FNPRM, *supra*.