Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11997 

By the Commission. 

Karen V. Gregory, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4749 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730–01–P 

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 messengerdelivered 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 ‘‘permitbut-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 § 1.1206(b) 

of the Commission’s rules. In 

proceedings governed by § 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 tendigit 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 tendigit 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 tendigit 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 selfcertification 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 nonemergency 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 calltracking 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, redirecting 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 percall 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

12000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS