Business Issues Committee
Agenda Summary
2006 Business Issues Committee
National Association of REALTORS®
2006 Midyear Legislative Meetings & Trade Expo
Marriott Wardman Park
Cotillion Ballroom North, Mezzanine Level
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
10:00 AM - 12:00 PMChair: Adam Cockey, Severna Park, MD
Vice Chair: Peter Casey, Weston, MA
Committee Liaison: Marcia Salkin, Washington, DC
Committee Executive: Ken Trepeta, Washington, DC
I. Call To Order
II. Opening Remarks
III. Ownership/Conflict of Interest
1. When NAR has an ownership interestin an entity and a member has an ownership interest* in that same entity, such member must disclose the existence of his or her ownership interest prior to speaking to a decision making body on any matter involving that entity.
2. If a member has personal knowledge that NAR is considering doing business with an entity in which a member has any financial interest**, or with an entity in which the member serves in a decision-making capacity*, or wit, then such member must disclose the existence of his or her financial interest or decision making role prior to speaking to a decision making body about the entity.
3. If a member has a financial interest in, or serves in a decision-making capacity for, any entity that the member knows is offering competing products and services as those offered by NAR, then such member must disclose the existence of his or her financial interest or decision-making role prior to speaking to a decision making body about an issue involving those competing products and services.
After making the necessary disclosure, a member may participate in the discussion and vote on the matter unless that member has a conflict of interest as defined below.
Conflict of Interest Policy
A member of any of NAR’s decision making bodies will be considered to have a conflict of interest whenever that member:
1. Is a principal, partner or corporate officer of a business providing products or services to NAR or in a business beingconsidered as a provider of products or services (“Business:); or
2. Holds a seat on the board of directors of the Business unless the person’s only relationship to the Business is service on such board of directors as NAR’s representative; or
3. Holds an ownership interest of more than 1 percent of the Business.
Members with a conflict of interest must immediately disclose their interest at the outset of any discussions by a decision making body pertaining to the Business or any of its products or services. Such members may not participate in the discussion relating to that Business other than to respond to questions asked of them by other members of the body. Furthermore, no member with a conflict of interest may vote on any matter in which the member has a conflict of interest, including votes to block or alter the actions of the body in order to benefit the Business in which they have an interest.
________________________________________
*Ownership interest is defined as the cumulative holdings of the member, the member’s spouse, children, siblings and to any trust, corporation or partnership in which any of the foregoing individuals is an officer or director, or owns, in the aggregate, at least 50% of the (a) beneficial interest (if a trust), (b) stock (if a corporation) or (c) partnership interests (if a partnership).
**Financial interest means any interest involving money, investments, credit or contractual rights.
IV. Review of Committee Goals
V.Approval of Previous Meeting's MinutesVI. RESPA PAG Update
A. In June 2005 the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) introduced its “roadmap to RESPA reform,” a continuation of its efforts to revamp the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) regulations.
C.A.R. and NAR advocate a market based approach to RESPA reform that encourages fair competition, protects consumer choice and provides “transparency,” or full disclosure of costs and services in the mortgage transaction.
HUD’s withdrawn 2004 RESPArule put lenders in control of the entire real estate settlement transaction while operating under an exemption from Section 8’s anti-kickback provisions. The rule would have most likely lead to increased concentration within the industry and reduce competition. Any regulation that moves an industry toward a more concentrated market structure should be viewed with considerable caution. An increased concentration of powers into the hands of a smaller number of lenders and service providers could lead to higher closing costs.
HUD held a series of informal meetings with industry and consumer group representatives to initiate a “meaningful exchange of ideas” on possible changes to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)regulations. The roundtable meetings were held in July and August; four roundtables were held at HUD’s headquarters in Washington D.C. and three roundtables co-hosted with the Small Business Administration in Los Angeles, Chicago and Fort Worth.
At the roundtables, HUD disclosed the provisions of a 2004 “final” RESPA rule which was withdrawn from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) consideration. The 2004 RESPA rule would have included an enhanced Good Faith Estimate (GFE) four-page form with yield spread premium disclosure and tolerances for third party settlement services; a Mortgage Package Offer (MPO) (formerly the Guaranteed Mortgage Package Offer or GMP), which was afforded an exemption from RESPA’sSection 8 anti-kickback provisions; and a Settlement Services Package (SSP) product which would allow for non-lenders to offer packages including appraisals, title services, recording fees and other lender required settlement services. HUD’s 2004 rule would not have required a lender to accept an SSP the consumer brought to the transaction.
While the word “consensus” was not used in connection with the seven roundtables, the majority of participants seemed to be in general agreement that HUD should pursue an enhanced or improved GFE and should forgo regulatory efforts to develop a packaging rule. NAR continues to work with HUD to communicate the interests of REALTORS® and consumers. The RESPA PAG will continue to discussthese issues as they await the HUD proposal. A new proposal is expected this spring. However, in April 2006 public comments, Secretary Jackson indicated that if the proposal was not met with approval, HUD would once again return to the drawing board.
VII. Recent Victories & DecisionsA. FCC Do-Not-Fax Final RuleTheTelephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits sending facsimile advertisements to a business or residential fax machine without the express permission or invitation of the recipient. Since 1992, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had held that an established business relationship between a sender and a fax recipient provided the requisite permission. In July 2003, the FCC reversed field and proposed rules to require the sender to have the express written permission of the recipient prior tosending a fax advertisement. On July 9th, 2005 President Bush signed S. 714, the Junk Fax Prevention Act, reinstating the long-standing FCC policy on prior business relationships.
C.A.R. and NAR support efforts to limit abusive faxing practices. C.A.R. and NAR believes the FCC has exceeded its statutory authority by requiring written permission for faxes.
The new fax law reaffirms the long-standing “established business relationship” (EBR) exception to the ban on unsolicited commercial faxes; places no time limit on an EBR; mandates a cost-free 24 hour/7 day opt-out process; and specifies the means by which fax numbers may be obtained. The new law does not preempt existing state fax laws for intrastate fax communications. It became effective on July 9th, 2005. NAR's Legal Division has released a compliance memo outlining the new laws requirements.
The FCC laid out rules in April 2006. The effective date is August 1, 2006. The rules establish a 30day opt-out request compliance requirement and identify what “cost free” mechanism fax senders can use for consumers to transmit their opt-out requests. The FCC refused to place a limit on the duration of an opt-out and established that an opt-out request would terminate the EBR exemption even if the parties continued the business relationship. The Commission chose not to set a time limit on EBR and will reevaluate next year. In its comments on the rulemaking, NAR urged the FCC to refrain frommaking onerous rules that financially penalize small business owners, such as real estate professionals, and undermine their economic contribution to the marketplace. NAR efforts were quite successful in shaping the final rule.B. Final Rule DocumentC. NAR Legal Compliance Memo
D.Decision in U.S. Chamber Challenge of California Ban on Interstate Faxes.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibitssending facsimile advertisements to a business or residential fax machine without the express permission or invitation of the recipient. On July 9th, 2005 President Bush signed S. 714, the Junk Fax Prevention Act, reinstating the long-standing FCC policyon prior business relationships. California passed legislation, SB 833, that did not contain an existing business relationship exemption. Furthermore, California contended that its law trumped federal law with regard to interstate faxes. The US Chamber filed suit in Federal Court to seek declaratory relief, preventing the enforcement of the California provisions.
Maintaining a fax machine is not a cost-free endeavor. Fax owners should be able to limit access to their machines. Written permission is an effective means of policing access and proving whether permission has been granted. States should have the right to pass legislation that exceeds the strictures of the federal Junk Fax Prevention Act.
Real estate brokers, agents, and REALTORS® trade associations would have been prohibited from sending faxes advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services to anyone without that person’s prior express written invitation or permission. Realtors® would have been forced to create and store over 66 million permission forms to sustain the over 6 million home sales transactions that occurred last year if the new rules had been in effect in 2004.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled on February 27, 2006 that the federal Junk Fax Prevention Act preempted the California law with regard to interstate fax transmissions under the U.S. Constitution. The ruling is a victory but further litigation is expected.E.Patriot Act Reauthorization
In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed and the President signed anti-terrorism legislation known as the USA PATRIOT Act (“Patriot Act”). Most of the provisions of the Act enhance law enforcement powers and provide funding for various anti-terrorism programs but do not directly affect the real estate industry. However, there are two primary areas that real estate professionals need to be concerned with; 1) the Patriot Act, in its definition of financial institutions includes "persons involved in real estate settlements and closings" and 2) the Patriot Act grants the government virtually unchecked seizure authority for business records that may pertain to terrorist or espionage activity. Currently, real estate professionals who are engaged in brokerage are exempt from specific Patriot Act money laundering rules, however, Treasury has expressed an interest in developing regulations governing the financial aspects of a closing transaction. Also, as the Patriot Act is reauthorized, there has been some concern that the provisions that pertain to business records have been to broad and do not sufficiently protect businesses from unwarranted seizures. During the reauthorization debate, the Senate approved language that would require specific justification for the seizure of business records.
NAR is concerned that 1) provisions that pertain to the seizure of business records may unnecessarily compromise the confidentiality between real estate professional and client and 2) that new regulations governing the closing transaction may prove to be burdensome given the existing regulations that govern other financial institutions.
Practitioners should be aware of the following: 1) At this time real estate professionals engaged in brokerage or property management activities and their real estate firms do not need to implement anti money laundering programs. 2) Financial institutions must implement a customer identification program and may ask a real estate professional’s client for personal information to complete a financial transaction. 3) Real Estate Settlements and Closings may eventually be regulated under the Patriot Act'smoney laundering rules. 4) The federal government, under the Patriot Act, may seize business records with little stated justification.
In March of 2006, Congress passed, and the President signed legislation that extends and revises key provisions of the Patriot Act to enhance protections for businesses faced with government inquiries, and requests for records, pertaining to possible terrorist related activity.
Also, in 2006 the Treasury department will likely draft proposed regulations that cover the financial aspect of the closing transaction and welcomes NAR input. As the Patriot Act is reauthorized, NAR will advocate greater checks on the government's ability to seize business records.VIII. Evolving IssuesA.RESPA Issue Summary
In June 2005, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released its “roadmap to RESPA reform,” a continuation of its efforts to revamp the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) regulations. A new proposal is expected in the spring of 2006.
NAR advocates a market-based approach to RESPA reform that encourages fair competition, protects consumer choice and provides full disclosure of costs and services in themortgage transaction.
HUD’s withdrawn 2004 RESPA rule would have put lenders in control of the entire real estate settlement transaction while operating under an exemption from Section 8’s anti-kickback provisions. The rule could have lead to increased concentration but less competition within the lending industry. Any regulation that moves an industry toward greater concentration should be viewed with considerable caution, as it could lead to higher closing costs.
A newproposal from HUD is imminent in the Spring of 2006. It is expected to be based upon a series of informal meetings with industry and consumer representatives to initiate a “meaningful exchange of ideas” on possible changes to the RESPA regulations. The roundtable meetings were held in July and August of 2005: four in Washington D.C. and three co-hosted with the Small Business Administration in Los Angeles, Chicago and Fort Worth. NAR was represented at each of these meetings.
At theroundtables, HUD disclosed the provisions of a 2004 “final” RESPA rule which was withdrawn from the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) consideration. That RESPA rule would have included an enhanced Good Faith Estimate (GFE) four-page form with yield spread premium disclosure and tolerances for third party settlement services; a Mortgage Package Offer (MPO) (formerly the Guaranteed Mortgage Package Offer or GMP), that would have been exempt from RESPA’s Section 8 anti-kickbackprovisions; and a Settlement Services Package (SSP) product that would allow non-lenders to offer packages including appraisals, title services, recording fees and other lender required settlement services. HUD’s 2004 rule would not have required alender to accept an SSP the consumer brought to the transaction.
HUD has said it is committed to drafting a rule that would provide greater certainty of closing costs for consumers. While there is no "formal" consensus, most roundtable participants seemed to agree that HUD should pursue an enhanced or improved GFE and should forgo its regulatory efforts to develop a packaging rule.B.RESPA Education Plan
RESPA reform is on the horizon. At present, thereforms appear that they will be modest. Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: the real estate industry is continuing along a path of transition.
In the past, the essential players in a real estate transaction held tight to their silos. Today, through affiliated business arrangements (AfBA’s) or through tighter relationships between the various players, the lines of demarcation have become blurred, often coming close to or breaching RESPA’s strictures. At the same time, an influx of new REALTORS® has joined this fast moving industry, often unaware of the rules. Finally, some experienced REALTORS® after years of moribund RESPA enforcement, have grown complacent. There is mounting evidence of greater enforcement ahead including the strong possibility that HUD will subcontract out RESPA enforcement.
NAR has been in the forefront of ensuring that tools are available so that our members do not run afoul of RESPA. Nevertheless, as more stories are told of enforcement and more violations are reported, it is essential that NAR redouble its efforts to ensure that all of our members have a clear understanding of RESPA and their obligations under this important federal law. A solid understanding of RESPA by all of ourmembers is essential to protecting NAR’s reputation, the reputation of the industry, and the reputation of REALTORS® across the United States. Strong education initiatives now will prevent this industry from suffering the reputational damage we have seen in the securities industry and other industries in the recent past.
Recommendations:
1) Establish a plan to encourage the adoption of a RESPA program or program component in every state regulators’ continuing education scheme. Coordinate and collaborate with appropriate NAR committees and staff.
2) Examine the development of a model RESPA curriculum/module at NAR as a guide for implementation at the state level.
3) Continue to enhance general education andinformation activities on RESPA and RESPA reform for the membership including regular practical coverage in more broadly distributed publications like REALTOR® Magazine.
4) Evaluate the merit/appropriateness of inclusion of a RESPA discussion/component in REALTOR® member ethics training.
Conclusion:
NAR and its affiliates should engage in a robust effort to further expand RESPA education. NAR should do this in the short run with more informational pieces at the national and state level and in the long run by advocating for RESPA education requirements in conjunction with state continuing education programs. Ensuring that our members are well versed in their obligations under RESPA is the surest way to maintain the integrity of our profession.
C. RESPA Realities WorkshopD. Title Insurance Hearing Testimony E. Personal Data Security LegislationF. Data Security Side by SideG.FTC Do-Not-Call Fee Increase
Two different federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulate various aspects of interstate and intrastate communications, including telemarketing. In December 2002, the FTC changed its Telemarketing Sales Rule by issuing final rules to implement a national “do-not-call” registry for interstate calls. The rules were designed to curtailvarious telemarketing abuses. In a separate but related effort, on June 26, 2003, the FCC amended its Telemarketing Rules so that the FTC National Do-Not-Call (DNC) provisions would extend to intrastate calls. Rulemaking has continued as the FTC and FCCcontinue to evaluate the implementation of the national do-not-call registry. FTC has consistently raised fees for access to the registry.
C.A.R. and NAR oppose fee increases for access to the do not call registry. NAR strongly advocated maintaining the long-standing FTC exemption to the telemarketing rules for face-to-face sales transactions. NAR also lobbied the FCC to limit the applicability of its rules to interstate calls and to clarify that calls to FSBOs and expired listingsfall outside the scope of the DNC rules. NAR emphasized that the FCC should not preempt state telemarketing laws.
On May 1, 2006, the FTC published yet another proposed fee increase raising the per area code fee to $62.00 from the $56.00 and the all area code fee to $17,050 from the current $15,400. Under the fee structure, telemarketers will continue to have access to up to 5 area codes free. If the proposed fee increase is implemented, fees for single area codes will be nearly two and a halftimes what they were in 2003 upon implementation of the legislation.
On February 18, 2005, the FCC issued an Order addressing NAR’s request that the Commission provides a rule that calls to FSBOs and expired listings fall outside the scope of the Do-Not-Call provisions. The FCC clarified that calls to FSBOs by real estate professionals representing a potential buyer are not a telephone solicitation, so long as the purpose of the call is to discuss the potential sale of the property to the buyer. Unfortunately, the FCC declined to provide an exemption from the Do-Not-Call rules for calls to expired listings and to FSBOs for the purpose of offering services to the residential subscriber (homeowner).H. FTC 2006 Fee Increase Notification
IX. 2006 Priority Legislation/RegulationsA.Small Business Health Plan Legislation Update
Sixty percent of America's 46 million uninsured citizens are self-employed or work for small employers that cannot afford to offer health insurance benefits. The percent of working-age Americanswho have been uninsured at some point in the year has risen from 28 percent in 2001 to 41 percent in 2005. Small businesses are generally unable to create the large pools of participants and achieve the efficiencies that allow premiums comparable to thoseavailable through a union or large employer plan.
A broad coalition of small business organizations, including NAR, support a new approach to health insurance delivery for small businesses. This new concept would permit associations to negotiate for and provide health insurance coverage to their members through small business health plans (SBHPs). SBHPs would offer uniform insurance plans to trade association members regardless of where the members reside. By banding together and thereby increasing their power to bargain with health insurance providers, small businesses could enjoy lower premiums. The most recent actuarial study estimated the savings to be 12 percent on average.
NAR supports efforts to allow bona fide associations to offer uniform health insurance coverage plans to association members regardless of where the member resides.
Access to affordable health insurance has increasingly become an issue for NAR's members. In 1996, 13% of REALTORS® were uninsured; by 2004, 28% had no health insurance. SBHPs could enable real estate associations to make health insurance available their memberships.
On Wednesday, March 15, 2006, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee approvedS.1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006. Cosponsored by Senators Enzi (R-WY) and Ben Nelson (D-NE), the bill authorizes the creation of fully-insured small business health plans (SBHPs) by trade associations.This was the first time in the 11 year history of small business/association health plan legislation that the Committee has voted on a SBHP bill. The bill passed the Committee on 11-9 vote.
The full Senate is now expected to take up the bill the first week in May. Once approved by the full Senate, a House-Senate conference will be necessary to resolve the differences between S. 1955 and the House SBHP measure, HR 525, approved on July 26, 2005 on a bipartisan vote of 263-165.
In preparation for the Committee and floor votes, NAR has conducted a series of fly-in for Federal Political Coordinators for Senators serving on the HELP Committee, state association presidents and executives, as well as all Senate FPCs. Calls for Action to REALTOR® members have been issued for both Committee and floor votes. In addition, state associations in states with insurance commissioners opposed to S. 1955 were asked to contact their commissioners and urge them to reconsider their opposition.
NAR also released the results of a NAR-sponsored, national opinion survey. Conducted by a team of respected Democratic and Republican pollsters, the survey showed that Americans -- 89 percent, including 93 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Democrats -- overwhelmingly favor the small business health plan concept. This is the second year that national surveys have found this rarely-seen level of public approval.
Building on the association health plan concept long-championed by Senator Olympia Snowe, S. 1955 authorizes the creation of fully-insured SBHPs, requires SBHP insurers to be licensed in every state in which they operate and places the regulatory authority over SBHPs with the state insurance commissioners. In addition, the bill established a process for harmonizing state regulations dealing with the administrative processes of regulating insurers, i.e. rules governing form filing, rate filing, etc.
Prior to and following the introduction of S. 1955 in November, Senate Majority HELP staff held weekly meetings with the major stakeholder interest groups to develop mutually agreeable compromises to provisions of the bill identified by each group as problematic. The four stakeholder groups included the SBHP Coalition, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and America's Health Insurance Plans association. At these meetings, the SBHP Coalition was represented by NAR, the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Builders and Contractors. These talks proved productive and a much-amended version of S. 1955 as introduced was approved by the HELP Committee.C.A.R.’s PositionThat CAR take a “NEUTRAL” position on Association Health Plan (AHP) and Small Business Health Plan (SBHP) proposed legislation. California currently has a small business health insurance plan to keep premiums low and affordable; however, recognizing that not every state possesses a similar plan, C.A.R. does not want to obstruct legislation which may help lower insurance costs for REALTORS® in other states. C.A.R. staff will continue to monitor this issue because of concerns with the following aspects of proposed legislation:- Would pre-empt California’s minimum coverage and rating requirements for health insurance for REALTORS®.
- This pre-emption may jeopardize the superior system that California already has in place. AHP and SBHP coverage will be based on minimal coverage requirements and greatly reduce what Californian’s currently have guaranteed.
- Will siphon individuals from California’s small business health plan pool which uses its size to negotiate reduced rates for health, dental and vision plans that small businesses otherwise couldn’t afford. This willleave a smaller and less diverse group with higher premiums in California’s plan.
- Will force employers to choose between offering an AHP or SBHP with inferior minimal standards of coverage or continue with the superior California plan but at higher premiums.
- The reduced coverage offered by AHPs or SBHPs could put pressure on California’s state legislature to reduce minimum coverage requirements in California.
B. S. 1995 Overview Chart
C. SBHP AG Response Letter
D. Durbin-Lincoln Summary
E. SBHP Hearing Testimony
X. 2006 Continuing Legislation/RegulationsA. NAR FCC Preemption PetitionB.FTC Do-Not-Email Regulations
The federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act ("CAN SPAM") does not ban unsolicited commercial e-mails but identifies protocols that must be observed by those sending unsolicited emails which advertise a commercial good or service. The bill also authorized the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish a Do-Not-E-mail Registry and required the agency to report to Congress on the feasibility of such a registry.
NAR strongly supports efforts to control fraudulent, misleading and abusive unsolicited e-mails and e-mailing practices. Such efforts must be carefully considered to balance the elimination of abusive spamming practices with the needs of small business to conduct legitimate business via e-mail without the imposition of significant compliance burdens.
REALTORS® use e-mail to (1) respond to inquiries, (2) contact clientsand firms involved in sales transactions, (3) remain in contact with former clients and (4) promote property listings. Overly onerous anti-spam legislation could limit the use of e-mail for business purposes.
Since the CAN-SPAM Act was sigenedinto law by President Bush in December 2003, the FTC has chosen not to establish a national Do-Not-E-mail Registry but has issued rules implementing the Act. The most recent final rule issued was a December, 16, 2004 final rule defining the criteria for determining the "primary purpose" of an electronic mail message under CAN SPAM. During the rulemaking process, NAR’s urged the Commission to address the subjectivity of certain factors the FTC identified as relevant to an interpretation that the primary purpose of an e-mail message is commercial. The final rule, which became effective on March 28, 2005, will help e-mail senders determine whether or not an e-mail message’s “primary purpose” is commercial and thus, subject to the provisions of the CAN SPAM Act.
On June 27, 2005, NAR submitted comments in response to further rulemaking by the FTC relating to CAN-SPAM. While NAR supported 2 definitional issues and clarification that an e-mail sender can use P.O. boxes in hisopt-out notice, we strongly opposed the Commission’s proposed action to shortening the time an e-mail sender has to honor recipient’s opt-out requests. The current opt-out timeframe is 10 days; the FTC is now initiating its discretionary authority to shorten that opt-out timeframe to 3 days. NAR also asked the FTC to issue regulations expanding the types of e-mail that are considered "transactional or relationship" (messages that are considered "transactional or relationship" do not have to comply with CAN-SPAM op-out requirements). No significant action has been taken since June 2005 by FTC.C. Insurance Reform LegislationD.Wireless 411 Directory Legislation
A consortium of the largest national wireless providers announced in early 2004 their plan to launch a wireless 411 service. This plan stirred opposition from privacy advocates and those who object to a plan that would limit cellular subscribers’ (who pay for calls received) ability to control access to their phones. Federal legislation to establish de minimis standards for any such wireless directory services has been introduced in the 109th Congress.
C.A.R. and NAR support efforts to establish federal guidelines for any wireless directory assistance service developed for cellular subscribers' telephone numbers. De minimis standards should include an opt-in requirement and give subscribers the right to opt-out without incurring any expense to do so.
ManyREALTORS® are cellular subscribers but not all choose to make their cell numbers publicly available. Creation of a wireless directory system which allows the subscriber to chose whether or not their cellular phone numbers are listed without cost to the subscriber would seem to best serve the interests of all subscribers.
HR 1139, the Wireless 411 Privacy Act (Pitts, R-PA) has been introduced in the House. Like several bills introduced last year, HR 1139 would require cellular companies togive subscribers the right to opt-out of being listed in any directory at no cost. To date, no legislative action has been scheduled for the measure and no similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
Earlier this year, industry plansto roll-out a wireless directory suffered a setback when both Sprint and Alltel wireless service providers announced that they had decided not to participate in any directory program. Since this announcement, some analysts have indicated that the outlookfor a wireless 911 service is now in question.
XI. New IssuesA. Guest Presentation: Betsy Broder, FTC Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, FTC/NAR Joint Identity Theft InitiativeB. NAR New Orleans November Meetings
XII. Adjournment
