Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program, 15558-15592 [2023-04489]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15558
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 54 and 64
[WC Docket Nos. 22–238, 11–42, and 21–
450; FCC 23–9; FR ID 129141]
Supporting Survivors of Domestic and
Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link Up
Reform and Modernization, Affordable
Connectivity Program
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) begins the process of
implementing the Safe Connections Act,
taking significant steps to improve
access to communications services for
survivors of domestic abuse and related
crimes. We seek comment on the
implementation of the Safe Connections
Act’s statutory requirement that mobile
service providers separate the line of a
survivor of domestic violence (and other
related crimes and abuse), and any
individuals in the care of the survivor,
from a mobile service contract shared
with an abuser within two business
days after receiving a request from the
survivor. We also seek comment on a
proposal to require service providers to
omit from consumer-facing logs of calls
and text messages any records of calls
or text messages to hotlines listed in a
central database of hotlines that the
Commission would create. We also seek
comment on whether to designate the
Lifeline program or the Affordable
Connectivity Program as a means for
providing survivors suffering financial
hardship with emergency
communications support for up to six
months, as required by the Safe
Connections Act.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
April 12, 2023, and reply comments are
due on or before May 12, 2023. Written
comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the
public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested
parties on or before May 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket Nos. 22–238,
11–42, and 21–450, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554. All filings must
be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
See FCC Announces Closure of FCC
Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public
Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities. 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 & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Travis Hahn, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, at Travis.Hahn@fcc.gov
or Chris Laughlin, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Competition Policy Division, at
Chris.Laughlin@fcc.gov. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collection
requirements contained in this
document, send an email to PRA@
fcc.gov or contact Nicole On’gele at
(202) 418–2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC
Docket Nos. 22–238, 11–42, and 21–450,
adopted on February 16, 2023 and
released on February 17, 2023. The full
text of this document is available at
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-23-9A1.pdf. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (e.g., braille,
large print, electronic files, audio
format, etc.) or to request reasonable
accommodations (e.g., accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
The proceeding this document
initiates 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 rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 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.
This document contains proposed
new or modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to reduce
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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, as required
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13. Public and
agency comments are due May 12, 2023.
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; (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;
and (e) way to further reduce the
information collection burden on small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Reliable, safe, and affordable
connectivity is critical to survivors
leaving a relationship involving
domestic violence, human trafficking,
and other related crimes or abuse. This
connectivity can assist survivors in
breaking away from their abusers and
finding and maintaining contact with
safe support networks, including family
and friends. Survivors whose devices
and associated telephone numbers are
part of multi-line or shared plans
(commonly referred to as ‘‘family
plans’’), however, can face difficulties
separating lines from such plans and
maintaining affordable service. Further,
having access to an independent phone
or broadband connection is important
for survivors to be able to communicate
and access other available services
without fear of their communications,
location, or other private information
being revealed to their abusers.
2. In this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), we continue the
work we initiated in July of last year to
support the connectivity needs of
survivors. Specifically, we begin the
process of implementing the Safe
Connections Act of 2022 (Safe
Connections Act), enacted this past
December, which provides important
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
statutory support for specific measures
to benefit survivors. We seek comment
on proposed rules that would help
survivors separate service lines from
accounts that include their abusers,
protect the privacy of calls made by
survivors to domestic abuse hotlines,
and support survivors that pursue a line
separation request and face financial
hardship through the Commission’s
affordability programs. We believe that
these measures will aid survivors who
lack meaningful support and
communications options when
establishing independence from an
abuser.
A. Separation of Lines From Shared
Mobile Service Contracts
3. In this section, we propose new
rules to codify and implement the line
separation provisions in the Safe
Connections Act. Our proposed rules
largely track the statutory language,
with some additional proposals and
requests for comment concerning other
issues that may be implicated by line
separations.
1. Definitions
4. We propose to adopt in our rules
the definitions of the terms listed in
new section 345 of the Communications
Act, as added by the Safe Connections
Act, including ‘‘covered act,’’
‘‘survivor,’’ ‘‘abuser,’’ ‘‘covered
provider,’’ ‘‘shared mobile services
contract,’’ and ‘‘primary account
holder.’’ We seek comment on each
proposed definition and invite
commenters to address our specific
questions below.
5. Covered Act. We propose to define
‘‘covered act’’ as conduct that
constitutes (1) a crime described in
section 40002(a) of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12291(a)), including, but not limited to,
domestic violence, dating violence,
sexual assault, stalking, and sex
trafficking; (2) an act or practice
described in paragraph (11) or (12) of
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)
(relating to severe forms of trafficking in
persons and sex trafficking,
respectively); or (3) an act under State
law, Tribal law, or the Uniform Code of
Military Justice that is similar to an
offense described in clause (1) or (2) of
this paragraph. Our proposed definition
is identical to the term as defined in the
Safe Connections Act, except that we
propose to add the clause ‘‘but not
limited to’’ in describing the crimes
covered by the first clause. Section
40002(a) of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 describes a number
of crimes and abuses in addition to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15559
those crimes enumerated in the Safe
Connections Act’s definition of
‘‘covered act,’’ including abuse in later
life, child abuse and neglect, child
maltreatment, economic abuse, elder
abuse, female genital mutilation or
cutting, forced marriage, and
technological abuse. Although the Safe
Connections Act describes a covered act
as ‘‘a crime described’’ in section
40002(a) of the Violence Against
Women Act ‘‘including domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, and sex trafficking,’’ it
does not say that only those listed
crimes may be included. We believe the
best reading of the definition of
‘‘covered act’’ in the Safe Connections
Act includes all crimes listed in section
40002(a); we see no reason why
Congress would choose to protect only
a subset of survivors of these crimes. We
believe the second clause of the
definition of ‘‘covered act’’ in the Safe
Connections Act, which identifies
specific subsections (‘‘an act or practice
described in paragraph (11) or (12) of
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000’’) also supports
our analysis because in contrast, the
first clause of the definition of ‘‘covered
act’’ does not limit the definition to
specific subsections of section 40002(a)
of the Violence Against Women Act. We
seek comment on this proposed
analysis. How should the fact that the
Safe Connections Act specifically
mentions ‘‘[d]omestic violence, dating
violence, stalking, sexual assault,
human trafficking, and related crimes’’
in its findings in section 3, while not
mentioning the other crimes and abuses
listed in section 40002(a) of the
Violence Against Women Act, factor
into our analysis? To what extent can
we include in our definition abuses
described in section 40002(a) of the
Violence Against Women Act that may
not be ‘‘crimes’’ under the statute?
6. We seek comment on whether,
instead of mirroring the statutory
language in our definition of ‘‘covered
act,’’ the Commission’s rules should list
out the crimes identified in section
40002(a) of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 and paragraph (11)
or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000. Would
such an approach help provide
additional clarity of the scope of the
Safe Connections Act’s protections for
covered providers and survivors? Would
adopting such a rule run the risk of our
rules becoming inconsistent with
statutory intent if Congress revises
either of those statutes in the future?
7. Finally, consistent with the Safe
Connections Act, we propose that a
criminal conviction or any other
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15560
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
determination of a court shall not be
required for conduct to constitute a
covered act. We seek comment on our
proposal. The Safe Connections Act
separately addresses the evidence
needed to establish that a covered act
has been committed or allegedly
committed. We address those
requirements below.
8. Survivor. We propose to define
‘‘survivor’’ as an individual who is not
less than 18 years old and (1) against
whom a covered act has been committed
or allegedly committed; or (2) who cares
for another individual against whom a
covered act has been committed or
allegedly committed (provided that the
individual providing care did not
commit or allegedly commit the covered
act), mirroring the Safe Connections
Act’s definition of ‘‘survivor.’’ We seek
comment on our proposal. Are there
other situations or circumstances in
which an individual should be
considered a ‘‘survivor’’ under our
rules, and if so, under what authority
would we expand that definition?
9. We seek comment on how we
should interpret the Safe Connections
Act’s language describing a survivor as
an individual ‘‘who cares for another
individual’’ against whom a covered act
has been committed or allegedly
committed, to provide guidance to both
covered providers and survivors. We
observe that the statutory language is
broad—Congress did not limit this
provision to only those situations in
which an individual is providing care to
family members, minors, dependents, or
those residing in the same household,
when it could have chosen to do so. It
also did not provide direction on how
to otherwise determine when an
individual is providing ‘‘care’’ for
another individual. Should we define
what it means to ‘‘care for’’ another
person or what it means to be ‘‘in the
care of’’ another individual, and if so,
what should that definition be? Is there
a common understanding of what it
means to ‘‘care for’’ or be ‘‘in the care’’
of another person? Has the meaning of
‘‘in the care of’’ or a comparable phrase
been defined elsewhere in statute or
regulation that could appropriately be
used for reference in the present
context?
10. Absent a common understanding
or similar definition to reference, we
believe that at a minimum, this phrase
should be understood to encompass any
individuals who are part of the same
household, including adult children, as
well as adults who are older, and those
who are in the care of another
individual by valid court order or power
of attorney. To support this
interpretation, we tentatively conclude
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
that ‘‘household’’ should have the same
meaning as it does in § 54.400 of our
rules. We seek comment on our
proposed interpretation. Is there any
reason to conclude that Congress
intended this phrase to be interpreted
more narrowly, for example, to include
only those under the age of 18 for whom
an individual is the parent, guardian, or
caretaker? We tentatively conclude that
the Safe Connections Act contemplates
that an individual who is the parent,
guardian, or caretaker of a person over
the age of 18 qualifies as someone who
provides care for another person and,
thus, as a ‘‘survivor’’ when a covered act
is committed against the person for
whom the individual cares. Do
commenters agree, or does the Safe
Connections Act contemplate that any
such persons over the age of 18 would
be considered ‘‘survivors’’ in their own
right? Would interpreting the Safe
Connections Act, and our rules, in any
of the ways we have discussed narrow
or broaden the applicability of the
protections in a way not intended by
Congress? If we conclude that certain
persons over the age of 18 can qualify
as being in the care of another
individual, should we permit those
persons to object to their line being
separated following a line separation
request by the ‘‘survivor’’ who cares for
them? If so, what sort of notice or
opportunity to object must covered
providers give to these users? We seek
comment on how best to interpret this
statutory language so as to provide the
protections that Congress intended for
individuals who are victims of a
covered act.
11. Abuser. We propose to define
‘‘abuser’’ for purposes of our rules as an
individual who has committed or
allegedly committed a covered act
against (1) an individual who seeks
relief under section 345 of the
Communications Act and the
Commission’s implementing rules; or
(2) an individual in the care of an
individual who seeks relief under
section 345 of the Communications Act
and the Commission’s implementing
rules, mirroring the substance of the
Safe Connections Act. We seek
comment on our proposal. Can
commenters identify any reason to
depart from the statutory definition of
‘‘abuser’’? We note that we do not
intend our definition to serve as
independent evidence of, or establish
legal liability in regards to, any alleged
crime or act of abuse, and propose to
adopt this definition for purposes of
implementing the Safe Connections Act
only. We seek comment on this
proposed approach.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12. Covered Provider. We propose to
define ‘‘covered provider’’ as a provider
of ‘‘a private mobile service or
commercial mobile service, as those
terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. 332(d),’’
consistent with the Safe Connections
Act. We seek comment on our proposal.
Section 332(d) defines ‘‘commercial
mobile service’’ as ‘‘any mobile service
(as defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is
provided for profit and makes
interconnected service available (A) to
the public or (B) to such classes of
eligible users as to be effectively
available to a substantial portion of the
public, as specified by regulation by the
Commission,’’ and defines ‘‘private
mobile service’’ as ‘‘any mobile service
(as defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is not
a commercial mobile service or the
functional equivalent of a commercial
mobile service, as specified by
regulation by the Commission.’’
13. We tentatively conclude that
covered providers would include both
facilities-based mobile network
operators, as well as resellers/mobile
virtual network operators. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
We also seek comment on whether
Congress intended the line separation
obligation to apply to all providers of
commercial mobile service or private
mobile service, as the Commission
might interpret and apply those
definitions, regardless of underlying
technology used to provide the service
(e.g., whether provided through land,
mobile, or satellite stations). We further
seek comment on whether we should
interpret the statutory definition of
‘‘covered provider’’ to include providers
of mobile broadband service that do not
also offer mobile voice service, and if so,
whether implementation of the line
separation obligation would differ for
those providers. If so, how would it
differ?
14. Shared Mobile Service Contract.
We propose to define ‘‘shared mobile
service contract’’ as a mobile service
contract for an account that includes not
less than two lines of service and does
not include enterprise services offered
by a covered provider. We seek
comment on our proposal, which
mirrors the Safe Connections Act’s
definition except insofar as it replaces
the phrase ‘‘not less than 2 consumers’’
with ‘‘not less than two lines of
service.’’ It is our understanding that
mobile service contracts are typically
structured around the number of lines of
service associated with an account
rather than the number of consumers.
We invite comment on this proposal.
We tentatively conclude that a ‘‘line’’
includes all of the services associated
with that line under the shared mobile
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
service contract, regardless of their
classification, including voice, text, and
data services, and we seek comment on
this tentative conclusion. We also
tentatively conclude that a ‘‘line of
service’’ under a shared mobile service
contract is one that is linked to a
telephone number, even if the services
provided over that line of service are not
voice services. We seek comment on our
analysis, and whether we should
provide additional guidance on the
bounds of ‘‘line of service’’ in
implementing the Safe Connections Act.
15. If we do not interpret
‘‘consumers’’ to mean ‘‘lines,’’ as
proposed, we seek comment on how
providers would verify the number of
consumers on an account. Would
requiring covered providers to verify the
number of consumers rather than the
number of lines possibly hamper a
survivor’s ability to obtain a line
separation? If we keep the statutory
terminology of ‘‘consumers,’’ would
there be additional privacy concerns,
e.g., because covered providers would
have to collect information about the
additional consumers on shared mobile
service contracts (including minors who
may use the line) other than the primary
account holder? How burdensome
would such additional information
collection requirements be for covered
providers, particularly small providers?
16. We tentatively conclude that
‘‘shared mobile service contract’’
includes mobile service contracts for
voice, text, and data services offered by
covered providers, as well as both prepaid and post-paid accounts, to the
extent that a service contract exists. We
seek comment on these tentative
conclusions. Do covered providers offer
pre-paid contracts for accounts that
include at least two lines?
17. We observe that the definition of
‘‘shared mobile service contract’’
explicitly excludes ‘‘enterprise
services.’’ We tentatively conclude that
enterprise services generally entail those
products or services specifically offered
to entities to support and manage
business operations, which may provide
greater security, integration, support, or
other features than are ordinarily
available to mass market customers, and
would exclude services marketed and
sold on a standardized basis to
residential customers and small
businesses. Do commenters agree? We
believe interpreting the exclusion for
‘‘enterprise services’’ in this way would
address the needs of survivors who use
a line on a shared mobile service
contract that may be structured under a
family-run small business or paid for by
a business account owned by the abuser,
for example. We seek comment on our
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
approach, and whether we should
define ‘‘enterprise services’’ differently
to address the needs of survivors.
18. Primary Account Holder. We
propose to define ‘‘primary account
holder’’ as ‘‘an individual who is a party
to a mobile service contract with a
covered provider,’’ mirroring the
definition in the Safe Connections Act.
We seek comment on our proposal, and
whether there are any considerations
that should cause us to depart from the
statutory definition. Are there situations
in which there is more than a single
individual who is party to a mobile
service contract?
2. Requirement To Separate Lines Upon
Request
19. Processing of Line Separation
Requests. Consistent with the Safe
Connections Act, for shared mobile
service contracts under which a
survivor and abuser each use a line, our
proposed rule would require covered
providers, not later than two business
days after receiving a completed line
separation request from a survivor, to (1)
separate the line of the survivor, and the
line of any individual in the care of the
survivor, from the shared mobile service
contract, or (2) separate the line of the
abuser from the shared mobile service
contract.
20. Because the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to
implement line separation requests from
survivors for shared mobile service
contracts ‘‘under which the survivor
and the abuser each use a line,’’ we
propose to interpret this statutory
language to mean that neither the abuser
nor the survivor needs to be the primary
account holder for a line separation to
be effectuated, regardless of whose line
is separated from the account. We also
believe that a person who does not use
a line on an account—but is a
‘‘survivor’’ under the statute because the
person is someone who cares for
another individual against whom a
covered act has been committed or
allegedly committed—would be able to
request a line separation because the
definition of ‘‘survivor’’ allows that
person to stand in for the individual in
their care. Additionally, we also believe
that the structure of the Safe
Connections Act gives survivors
discretion to request separation from the
account of either the line of the survivor
(and the lines of any individuals in the
survivor’s care) or the line of the abuser,
but we seek comment on whether the
covered provider also retains the
discretion to determine whether to
separate the line of the abuser or the
line(s) of the survivor. We seek
comment on our proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15561
interpretations, and on their potential
implications and challenges. For
instance, what implementation
challenges will covered providers face,
if any, if the survivor seeks to remove
the abuser from the account but neither
the survivor nor the abuser is the
primary account holder? Do covered
providers have existing processes to
remove a primary account holder from
an account and designate another user
as the primary account holder, such as
following the death of a primary
account holder, that could be applied if
the survivor seeks to remove the abuser
from the account and the abuser is the
primary account holder?
21. The Safe Connections Act requires
covered providers, upon receiving a
completed line separation request from
a survivor, to separate the line of the
survivor and the line of any individual
in the care of the survivor. As with the
definition of ‘‘survivor,’’ the Safe
Connections Act does not explain how
to determine who qualifies as ‘‘in the
care of’’ the survivor for the purposes of
line separation requests. We believe that
we should adopt the same approach for
making this determination as we do for
interpreting the definition of ‘‘survivor.’’
Unlike the definition of ‘‘survivor,’’
however, we believe that for the
purposes of line separation requests, an
individual ‘‘in the care’’ of a survivor
need not be someone against whom a
covered act has been committed or
allegedly committed. As previously
discussed, the Safe Connections Act
defines ‘‘survivor’’ as including an
individual at least 18 years old who
‘‘cares for another individual against
whom a covered act has been
committed or allegedly committed,’’ but
it requires covered providers to separate
the lines of both the survivor and ‘‘any
individual in the care of the survivor,’’
upon request of the survivor. We
propose to interpret these provisions to
mean that a covered provider must
separate the lines, upon request, of any
individuals in the care of survivors
(however that is defined) without regard
to whether a covered act has been
committed or allegedly committed
against the individuals in the care of the
survivor. We seek comment on our
proposed interpretation of these
provisions.
22. Under the Safe Connections Act,
covered providers must effectuate line
separations not later than two business
days after receiving a completed line
separation request from a survivor. We
tentatively conclude covered providers
should have two full business days
following the day the request was made
to complete a line separation request,
which aligns with the Commission’s
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15562
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
rules governing computation of time
related to Commission actions. Should
we adopt another meaning for what
constitutes two business days, such as
48 hours from the time the request was
made for requests made during business
hours, and 48 hours from the start of the
next business day for requests not made
during business hours? Should we
encourage covered providers to
effectuate separations in less than two
business days, if feasible? We seek
comment on whether we should
establish a time limit or other guidelines
for how long covered providers have to
determine whether a line separation
request is incomplete. Because line
separation requests may be time
sensitive, we believe that, if feasible,
covered providers should review
requests to make this determination
promptly, and ideally make this
determination and either effectuate a
line separation or reject an incomplete
request within the two business day
timeframe established by the statute. We
believe this will enable survivors to
quickly take steps to correct errors or
submit a new request, if appropriate.
Once a covered provider determines a
request is complete and that there is no
other basis for rejection, we believe the
statute is clear that the provider has no
more than two business days, however
that is calculated, to effectuate the
request, and we seek comment on this
conclusion.
23. We also seek comment on the
reasons covered providers may reject a
request and what survivors can do upon
receiving a rejection. At a minimum, we
expect that covered providers may reject
a request because the provider was
unable to authenticate that the survivor
is the user of the specified line, the
request is missing required verification
information or documentation,
information or documentation
submitted by the survivor is invalid, or
the line separation is operationally or
technically infeasible by the provider.
We believe that any corrections,
resubmissions, or selected alternatives
for obtaining a line separation should be
processed within the two-business-day
timeframe established by the Safe
Connections Act. We seek comment on
how to balance our interest in allowing
survivors to make repeated requests to
obtain a line separation with our
interest in preventing fraud on multiline
shared accounts. Should we require
covered providers to establish
procedures for determining whether
repeated requests are fraudulent and
decline to effectuate line separations in
those instances?
24. Operational and Technical
Infeasibility. Under the Safe
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
Connections Act, covered providers
who cannot operationally or technically
effectuate a line separation request are
relieved of the obligation to effectuate
line separation requests. Because this
provision specifies that covered
providers are only relieved of the
‘‘requirement to effectuate a line
separation request,’’ we believe that all
covered providers must offer the ability
for survivors to submit requests for line
separations described in the statute even
if the provider may not be able to
effectuate such separations in all
instances. We seek comment on this
interpretation.
25. We seek comment to understand
what operational and technical
limitations covered providers may face.
We expect that many covered providers
already have processes in place to
effectuate line separations and seek
comment on this belief. We tentatively
conclude that any line separation a
covered provider can complete within
two business days under its existing
capabilities, as those may change over
time, would not be operationally or
technically infeasible under the Safe
Connections Act. We also believe that
the Safe Connections Act requires
covered providers to take all reasonable
steps to effectuate any line separation
requests they receive in accordance with
the statute and the rules we adopt, and
we seek comment on how we would
determine whether the steps taken meet
this standard. Must covered providers
change their policies and procedures
and invest in equipment and technology
upgrades to be able to effectuate all or
a greater number of line separations?
Should we instead simply define what
circumstances qualify as operational
and technical limitations and require
covered providers to take steps to
effectuate line separations in all other
circumstances? We seek comment on
the potential approaches, including
their costs and burdens on covered
providers, including small providers.
Regardless of any requirements we
establish, we recognize that there may
be instances when operational and
technical limitations prevent covered
providers from effectuating the types of
line separations established by the Safe
Connections Act or from doing so
precisely as the statute and our rules
require. We believe that in these
instances, the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to provide
the survivor with alternatives to
submitting a line separation request,
including starting a new line of service.
We also believe that in these
circumstances, covered providers
should offer, allow survivors to elect,
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and effectuate any alternative options
that would allow survivors to obtain a
line separation. For instance, some
covered providers may not be able to
separate an abuser’s line from an
account if the abuser is the primary
account holder, but would be able to
separate the survivor’s line from the
account. Likewise, some covered
providers may be capable of processing
line separation requests, but not in the
middle of a billing cycle.
3. Submission of Line Separation
Requests
26. Information Required to Process
Line Separation Requests. The Safe
Connections Act requires that survivors
submit to covered providers certain
information with their line separation
requests, and we propose to codify those
requirements in our rules. First, under
our proposed rule, a survivor submitting
a line separation request must expressly
indicate that the survivor is requesting
relief from the covered provider under
section 345 of the Communications Act
and our rules and identify each line that
should be separated. In cases where a
survivor is seeking separation of the
survivor’s line, the request must state
that the survivor is the user of that
specific line. In cases where a survivor
is seeking separation of a line of an
individual under the care of the
survivor, the request must also include
an affidavit setting forth that the
individual is in the care of the survivor
and is the user of that specific line. In
support of efforts to deter fraud and
abuse, we seek comment on whether we
should mandate requirements for any
affidavits that are submitted. At a
minimum, we believe that affidavits
should be signed and dated. Should
they also be notarized? Can or must we
rely on the alternative declaration
mechanism provided for by 28 U.S.C.
1746? Should affidavits regarding
individuals in the care of a survivor
include the individual’s name,
relationship to the survivor, or other
information? Are there privacy concerns
with potentially requiring this
additional information?
27. Consistent with the Safe
Connections Act, we also tentatively
conclude that when a survivor is instead
requesting that a covered provider
separate the line of the abuser from the
shared mobile service contract, the line
separation request should also state that
the abuser is the user of that specific
line. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Though not required under
the Safe Connections Act, should we
require that the line separation request
include an affidavit that the abuser is
the user of a specific line, rather than
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
just a statement? We seek comment on
whether covered providers need any
other information to effectuate line
separation requests. Commenters should
address any privacy concerns from
requiring such additional information.
28. Because the Safe Connections Act
requires that covered providers ‘‘shall’’
separate the lines requested by a
survivor after receiving a completed line
separation request, we believe that this
statutory language is best read as
requiring the covered provider to
complete the line separation as long as
the request provides the information
required by the Safe Connections Act
and our implementing rules, and the
line separation is operationally and
technically feasible. In other words, we
do not believe that the Safe Connections
Act requires covered providers to take
any steps to separately verify the
legitimacy of the information provided;
we seek comment, however, on whether
the statute permits them to do so, and
if so, what the implications are for both
covered providers and survivors. We
seek comment on our proposed
interpretation of this provision. What
would be the benefits and drawbacks of
such an approach?
29. The Safe Connections Act does
not address whether or how covered
providers should authenticate the
identity of a survivor to ensure that a
person making a line separation request
is actually a user of a line on the
account. We recognize that unless a
survivor is the primary account holder,
covered providers may have limited
information about the survivor and
therefore fewer methods to authenticate
the survivor’s identity. We also
appreciate that many survivors may not
be in a position to supply government
issued identification or other official
identifying information to covered
providers for authentication purposes.
We are concerned that, absent any form
of authentication, line separation
requests could be easily abused by bad
actors with significant consequences to
consumers, similar to instances of
subscriber identify module (SIM) swap
and port-out fraud. We note, however,
that in response to the Notice of Inquiry,
some commenters argued that
maximizing the ability of survivors to
access any benefits the Commission
establishes should supersede fraud and
abuse concerns, at least absent evidence
of widespread fraud or abuse. We seek
comment on the appropriate balance
between these two competing public
interests.
30. We seek comment on whether we
should require covered providers to
authenticate the identity of a survivor to
verify that the survivor is actually the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
user of a line on the account before
processing a line separation request.
When the survivor is the primary
account holder or a user designated to
have account authority by the primary
account holder (designated user), we
believe covered providers should
authenticate survivors just as they
would any other primary account holder
or designated user, and we seek
comment on this proposal. If the
survivor is not the primary account
holder or a designated user, we seek
comment on whether we should
designate the forms of authentication
that are appropriate for covered
providers to use for line separation
requests, and if so, which forms of
authentication we should designate. We
believe in this particular context that
SMS text-based and app-based
authentications could be useful because
they rely on the user having access to
the device associated with the line. We
also seek comment on whether call
detail information could be a viable
alternative in these circumstances
because it requires knowledge of call
history by the user. Are there other
authentication methods that would be
both feasible for survivors and secure?
We observe that some comments
received in response to our 2021 SIM
Swap and Port-Out Fraud NPRM
discussed security shortcomings of
these and other authentication
mechanisms, and several commenters in
that proceeding urged us to give
providers flexibility in deciding which
forms of authentication to use to reduce
costs and burdens and avoid creating a
roadmap for bad actors. To what extent
should the concerns raised in that
proceeding guide our decision making
here? Should we allow covered
providers flexibility to determine which
forms of authentication to offer? If so,
should we require covered providers to
offer multiple forms of authentication
and give survivors the opportunity to
authenticate using any method
available? How burdensome would it be
for covered providers if we were to
require them to authenticate that
survivors are users of a line on a shared
mobile account, particularly for small
providers? How burdensome would
such a requirement be on survivors
seeking line separation requests, and
would such requirements be consistent
with Congressional intent? Finally, we
seek comment on how any
authentication process we establish for
line separations should intersect with
any identity verification process
survivors must undergo to access the
designated program.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15563
31. We recognize that covered
providers may require additional
information to assign the survivor as a
primary account holder. Beyond the
information already discussed, what
information would covered providers
need from survivors to establish them as
primary account holders? We note that
certain information, like full residential
address, billing address, Social Security
Number, and financial information can
be extremely sensitive or difficult to
provide for survivors that may be trying
to physically and financially distance
themselves from their abusers.
Residential address information can be
particularly problematic because
survivors may not be residing at one
location or have a fixed address, and if
any address information is exposed, it
may allow an abuser to locate a
survivor. If a survivor is unable to
provide all the information that is
typically required to establish a primary
account holder, should we require
covered providers to modify the
information necessary to accommodate
survivors? If so, what information
should we permit covered providers to
require from survivors? If not, are there
adequate alternative options for
survivors to obtain needed
communications services?
32. Additionally, although we
appreciate that many survivors may
have limited information about the
abuser and the account associated with
the mobile service contract, we seek
comment on whether we should require
survivors who are not the primary
account holder to submit other
information to ensure that line
separations are being processed for the
correct account and to minimize
fraudulent line separations. We
specifically seek comment on whether
we should require survivors to submit
one or more of the following pieces of
information about the account or
primary account holder even if the
primary account holder is the abuser:
account number, primary phone number
associated with the account, zip code,
address associated with the account,
and PIN or password associated with
the account.
33. Documentation Demonstrating
Survivor Status. Consistent with the
Safe Connections Act, our proposed rule
would require survivors seeking a line
separation to submit information that
verifies that an individual who uses a
line under the shared mobile service
contract (i.e., an ‘‘abuser’’) has
committed or allegedly committed a
covered act against the survivor or an
individual in the survivor’s care. To
meet this requirement, survivors must
submit one or more of the eligible
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15564
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
documents prescribed in the Safe
Connections Act: (1) a copy of a signed
affidavit from a licensed medical or
mental health care provider, licensed
military medical or mental health care
provider, licensed social worker, victim
services provider, or licensed military
victim services provider, or an
employee of a court, acting within the
scope of that person’s employment; or
(2) a copy of a police report, statements
provided by police, including military
police, to magistrates or judges, charging
documents, protective or restraining
orders, military protective orders, or any
other official record that documents the
covered act. At a minimum, we believe
that the documentation provided should
clearly indicate the name of the abuser
and the name of the survivor and make
an affirmative statement indicating that
the abuser actually or allegedly
committed an act that qualifies as a
covered act against the survivor or an
individual in the care of a survivor. Are
there circumstances in which a survivor
would not be able to obtain
documentation that provides this
information? Should we require that the
documentation include any additional
identifying information about the abuser
or the survivor, such as an address or
date of birth? What potential privacy
implications would such a requirement
raise, and would requiring such
information be consistent with the Safe
Connections Act? As a way to minimize
fraud and abuse of the line separation
process, we believe that, to the extent
the documentation includes identifying
information about the abuser or the
survivor, covered providers should
confirm that the information matches
any comparable identifying information
in the covered provider’s records when
processing a line separation request. We
also seek comment on whether we
should set requirements for the
timeliness of evidence showing a
covered act was committed. For
instance, should we require that
documentation be dated, or show the
covered act occurred within a certain
period prior to the request? If so, how
long? We seek comment on these
potential approaches and whether they
are consistent with the Congressional
intent of the Safe Connections Act.
34. We acknowledge that survivors
may have difficulty securing the
documents specified by the Safe
Connections Act to demonstrate that an
individual using a line on a shared
mobile service contract has committed
or allegedly committed a covered act, or
doing so in a timely manner. In the
Notice of Inquiry, we asked whether
allowing survivors to submit an affidavit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
regarding their survivor status would
provide sufficient verification and
whether we should permit other options
if a survivor cannot obtain the required
documents. Some commenters
expressed support for survivor affidavits
and also argued that survivors should be
permitted to submit affidavits from
other qualified third parties not
prescribed in the Safe Connections Act,
such as shelters and advocacy
organizations. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Safe Connections Act,
which was adopted by Congress after
the Notice of Inquiry, clearly specifies
the documents survivors can submit to
demonstrate survivor status while
specifically preserving the right of states
to set less stringent requirements. We
seek comment on whether the Safe
Connections Act permits the
Commission to establish other forms of
verification that a survivor can submit,
and if so, whether we should permit
other forms of verification.
35. As discussed above, we believe
that the Safe Connections Act is best
read as requiring covered providers to
complete a line separation as long as the
line separation request provides the
statutorily required information,
without requiring covered providers to
separately verify the information
provided. We recognize that many
covered providers may not have the
expertise to determine the authenticity
of such documents and that it would
undermine the goals of the Safe
Connections Act if a covered provider
denied a line separation based on an
incorrect determination that verification
documents submitted by a survivor are
not authentic. Nonetheless, we seek
comment on whether and to what extent
we should require or permit covered
providers to validate the authenticity of
any documents meant to verify survivor
status that they receive in order to
minimize the avenues that bad actors
can use to commit fraud through the
line separation process.
36. Finally, we propose to include in
our rules the Safe Connections Act’s
proviso that section 345 of the
Communications Act (establishing the
line separation process) ‘‘shall not affect
any law or regulation of a State
providing communications protections
for survivors (or any similar category of
individuals) that has less stringent
requirements for providing evidence of
a covered act (or any similar category of
conduct) than this subsection,’’ and seek
comment on our proposal.
37. Election of the Manner of
Communication from Covered
Providers. Under the Safe Connections
Act, a covered provider must ‘‘allow the
survivor to elect in the manner in which
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the covered provider may—(i) contact
the survivor, or designated
representative of the survivor, in
response to the request, if necessary; or
(ii) notify the survivor, or designated
representative of the survivor, of the
inability of the covered provider to
complete the line separation.’’ We
propose to codify this requirement in
our rules and seek comment on how
best to understand it. We tentatively
conclude that this requirement simply
obligates covered providers to allow
survivors to select, at the time they are
submitting a line separation request, the
manner the covered provider must use
to communicate with a survivor after
the survivor submits the request. We
further believe that covered providers
must ask survivors to provide the
appropriate contact information with
their request, and, if applicable, their
designated representative. We seek
comment on these tentative
conclusions.
38. Confidential and Secure
Treatment of Personal Information. We
propose to require covered providers,
including any officers, directors, and
employees—as well as covered
providers’ vendors, agents, or
contractors that receive or process line
separation requests with the survivor’s
consent, or as needed to effectuate the
request—to treat any information
submitted by a survivor as part of a line
separation request as confidential and
securely dispose of the information not
later than 90 days after receiving the
information, consistent with the Safe
Connections Act. Our proposal mirrors
the Safe Connections Act, except that
we propose to clarify that ‘‘vendor’’ as
used in the Safe Connections Act
includes ‘‘contractors’’ who may receive
line separation requests in their
provision of services to covered
providers. We believe that this
interpretation of ‘‘vendor’’ reflects the
business practices of covered providers
and will mitigate privacy risks to
survivors. We seek comment on our
proposal.
39. The Safe Connections Act requires
confidential treatment and disposal of
information submitted by a survivor
‘‘[n]otwithstanding section 222(c)(2)’’ of
the Communications Act, which in turn
requires telecommunications carriers to
‘‘disclose customer proprietary network
information, upon affirmative written
request by the customer, to any person
designated by the customer.’’ The
Communications Act defines ‘‘customer
proprietary network information’’ (or
CPNI) as ‘‘information that relates to the
quantity, technical configuration, type,
destination, location, and amount of use
of a telecommunications service
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
subscribed to by a customer of a
telecommunications carrier, and that is
made available to the carrier by the
customer solely by virtue of the carriercustomer relationship,’’ and
‘‘information contained in the bills
pertaining to telephone exchange
service or telephone toll service
received by a customer of a carrier,’’ but
does not include subscriber list
information. Thus, to the extent that any
information a survivor submits as part
of a line separation request would be
considered CPNI, we believe the Safe
Connections Act requires that such
information (as well as information
submitted by a survivor that would not
be considered CPNI) should be treated
confidentially and disposed of securely.
We seek comment on our analysis. How
should we implement the Safe
Connections Act’s requirement that
information submitted by survivors be
treated as confidential and be securely
disposed of ‘‘[n]otwithstanding section
222(c)(2) of the [Communications] Act’’?
40. We seek comment on how we
should interpret the requirement that
covered providers treat information
submitted by survivors as
‘‘confidential,’’ and what requirements,
if any, we should impose to ensure such
information is disposed of ‘‘securely.’’
We are mindful that requiring and
identifying specific data protection
mechanisms can provide a roadmap to
bad actors and may also be overtaken by
new technological advancements. Given
that, what guidance can we provide to
covered providers as to what would be
considered ‘‘confidential’’ treatment and
‘‘secure’’ disposal under the Safe
Connections Act? At a minimum, we
believe that treating such information as
confidential means not disclosing or
permitting access to such information
except as to the individual survivor
submitting the line separation request,
anyone that the survivor specifically
designates, or specific types of third
parties (i.e., vendors, contractors, and
agents) as needed to effectuate the
request. Do commenters agree? Are
there other specific actions we should
require covered providers to take or not
take to ensure that information remains
confidential? For instance, should we
require covered providers to maintain
line separation request information in a
separate database or restrict employee
access to only those who need access to
that information to effectuate the
request? Should we require such
information to be stored with
encryption? Can we construe the
obligation on providers to ‘‘treat’’
information submitted in connection
with a line separation request as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
‘‘confidential’’ to include an obligation
not to use or process such information
for certain purposes (e.g., marketing)? If
so, what should be permissible purposes
for the use or processing of such
information, other than effectuating the
request, if any? What mechanisms, if
any, should we require covered
providers to use to ensure that
confidential information is disposed of
securely? How burdensome would any
such requirements be on covered
providers, particularly small providers?
Should unauthorized disclosure of, or
access to, information submitted by
survivors as part of a line separation
request be considered evidence that a
covered provider does not treat such
information confidentially?
41. Consistent with the Safe
Connections Act, we also propose to
make clear that the requirement to
securely dispose of information
submitted by a survivor within 90 days
does not prohibit a covered provider
from maintaining a record that verifies
that a survivor fulfilled the conditions
of a line separation request for longer
than 90 days. We believe that the best
interpretation of this provision
presumes that any such records will not
contain any information submitted by
survivors, which, as discussed, would
be deemed confidential and subject to
secure disposal within 90 days.
Nonetheless, we propose that covered
providers also treat such records as
confidential and securely dispose of
them. We seek comment on our
proposals. Should we require covered
providers to dispose of the records
verifying the fulfillment of a line
separation request within a certain
timeframe, and if so, what would be an
appropriate timeframe? Are there
reasons why a covered provider, or a
survivor, would need to retain such
records of fulfilling the conditions of a
line separation request, beyond their
potential need for enrollment in the
designated program providing
emergency communications support?
42. Means for Submitting Line
Separation Requests. The Safe
Connections Act directs covered
providers to ‘‘offer a survivor the ability
to submit a line separation request . . .
through secure remote means that are
easily navigable, provided that remote
options are commercially available and
technically feasible.’’ We propose to
codify this requirement in our rules and
seek comment on how to implement it.
43. Although the Safe Connections
Act does not define what constitutes
‘‘remote means,’’ we tentatively
conclude that it is a mechanism for
submitting a line separation request that
does not require the survivor to interact
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15565
in person with an employee of the
covered provider at a physical location.
We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. For example, we believe
that requiring a visit to a brick and
mortar store would not constitute
remote means. Conversely, we believe
that a form on a covered provider’s
website with the ability to input
required information and attach
necessary documents would constitute a
remote means. We also believe that
submissions via email, a form on a
provider’s mobile app, a chat feature on
a provider’s website, interactive voice
response (IVR) phone calls, and postal
mail would constitute remote means.
Would a live telephone interaction, text
message communication, or video chat
with a customer service representative
constitute remote means as
contemplated by the Safe Connections
Act? We seek comment on our proposed
analysis of what constitutes remote
means. In identifying permissible
remote means, should we take into
consideration whether the means are
consistent with or similar to the means
survivors must use to apply for the
designated program discussed below to
minimize the burdens on survivors? We
note that any remote means must permit
survivors to submit any necessary
documentation, although we seek
comment on whether covered providers
should be able to offer means that allow
or require survivors to initiate a request
using one method (such as an IVR
phone call) and submit the
documentation through another method
(such as via email). We also seek
comment on whether we should require
providers to accept documentation in
any format, including, for example,
pictures of documents or screenshots. In
addition, we tentatively conclude that
the Safe Connections Act would permit
covered providers to offer survivors
means that are not considered remote so
long as the provider does not require
survivors to use those non-remote
means or make it harder for survivors to
access remote means than to access nonremote means.
44. The Safe Connections Act requires
covered providers to offer remote means
for submitting line separation requests
only if such means are ‘‘technically
feasible’’ and ‘‘commercially available.’’
As a general matter, are there remote
means for survivors to submit line
separation requests that are technically
feasible to implement and commercially
available for all covered providers,
including small providers? If so, which
ones? If not, what steps must covered
providers, including small providers,
take to make remote means technically
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15566
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
feasible or how long before they are
commercially available? Relatedly, how
long will it take covered providers to
select, implement, test, and launch
remote means for line separation
requests, and how does that timeline
differ depending on the potential
requirements we discuss above? Can
covered providers adopt or modify
existing systems that they use in other
aspects of their business to provide
survivors the ability to submit remote
requests? Additionally, what are the
costs associated with this process and
the varying alternative requirements,
and do they differ for small providers?
45. The Safe Connections Act requires
that the means of submission, in
addition to being remote, must be
‘‘secure,’’ and we seek comment on the
meaning of this term. We tentatively
conclude that any means a covered
provider offers survivors to submit a
line separation request, including nonremote means, must be secure, and seek
comment on our tentative conclusion.
We believe that, at a minimum, secure
means are those that prevent
unauthorized access to or disclosure of
the information and documentation
submitted with the line separation
request during the submission process.
Should we define what would
constitute ‘‘secure’’ in greater detail—
and if so, how—or should we allow
covered providers flexibility to adopt
means they deem ‘‘secure’’?
Specifically, should we require that any
electronic means of submission use
encrypted transmission? Are there
particular means that we should deem
to be unsecure in all instances? As with
the Commission’s CPNI rules, should
unauthorized disclosure of, or access to,
information submitted as part of a line
separation request be considered
evidence that a covered provider does
not provide a ‘‘secure’’ means of
transmission?
46. The means of submitting a request
must also be ‘‘easily navigable,’’ and we
invite comment on the meaning of this
phrase. As an initial matter, we
tentatively conclude the means for
submitting a request must be easily
navigable for individuals with
disabilities, and we seek comment on
this tentative conclusion. Does easily
navigable also mean that any user
interface or forms related to line
separation requests must be easy for
survivors to comprehend and use? Does
it also mean that any user interface or
form must clearly identify the
information and documentation that a
survivor must include with their request
and that survivors must be able to easily
insert or attach that information?
Should we develop and mandate a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
standardized form that covered
providers must use or direct
stakeholders to work together to develop
such a form? Additionally, does the
phrase ‘‘easily navigable’’ place an
obligation on covered providers to make
the means of making a line separation
request easily findable and accessible by
survivors?
47. We seek comment on whether we
should adopt additional requirements
concerning the mechanisms for
submitting line separation requests to
ensure that all survivors have the ability
to submit such requests and can obtain
line separation in a timely manner. To
what extent should covered providers
be required to make available remote
means that are accessible to individuals
with disabilities? Does the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video
Accessibility Act (CVAA) already
require that all or certain means for
submitting line separation requests be
accessible for individuals with
disabilities? To what extent should the
means through which a covered
provider permits survivors to submit
line separation requests be made
available in the languages in which a
covered provider advertises its services?
Should the means covered providers
make available for submitting line
separation requests ask survivors for
their preferred language from among
those in which the covered provider
advertises? Additionally, we invite
feedback on whether we should require
covered providers to offer more than
one means to submit a line separation
request and ensure any such additional
means address the needs of survivors
who may be using different technologies
or who may have different levels of
digital literacy. Alternatively, should we
designate one specific mean or process
that all covered providers must offer to
fulfill these obligations, such as a form
on the provider’s website, but also allow
covered providers to offer other
additional means or processes if they so
choose? We seek comment on how
costly and burdensome any such
requirements would be for covered
providers, particularly small providers.
48. Given the difficult circumstances
that survivors may be experiencing at
the time they make a line separation
request, we believe that providers
should make it easy for survivors to
choose the best communications service
offerings for their needs. Accordingly,
we seek comment on whether we
should require covered providers to
allow survivors to indicate their service
choices when they are submitting a line
separation request. If so, we seek
comment on what constitutes the full
scope of service options covered
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
providers should be required to offer to
survivors, but tentatively conclude that
the Safe Connections Act makes clear
that survivors can seek to: (1) start a
new line of service; (2) keep the existing
service plan, with the abuser’s line
separated from the account; (3) select a
new plan from among all commercially
available plans the covered provider
offers for which the survivor may be
eligible, including any prepaid plans;
(4) obtain benefits through the
designated program if available through
the provider; (5) switch providers by
porting the lines of the survivor and
anyone on the survivor’s account to a
new provider selected by the survivor,
if technically feasible; and (6) move the
line to an existing account of another
person with service from the covered
provider. What are the pros and cons of
our proposed approach? For example,
would this requirement maximize the
simplicity for survivors navigating the
line separation process? Conversely,
how burdensome would this
requirement be on covered providers,
particularly small providers? Are there
commercially available tools that would
allow covered providers to implement
this requirement? Is such a requirement
otherwise technically feasible?
49. Assistance with Completing Line
Separation Requests. While the Safe
Connections Act requires covered
providers to effectuate line separations
after receiving a completed line
separation request from a survivor, we
observe that it permits survivors to
indicate a designated representative for
communications regarding line
separation requests. Does the Safe
Connections Act permit survivors to
rely on assistance from their designated
representative or other individuals, such
as employees of victim service
providers, to prepare and submit line
separation requests? If not, why not, and
practically speaking, how would
covered providers know whether a
survivor relied on such assistance? If the
Safe Connections Act does allow such
assistance, should we establish
guidelines regarding this practice? For
example, should we require those
assisting survivors to include in the
request their name and relationship to
the survivor, along with a statement that
the person assisted the survivor? If so,
should we require providers to request
this information through the means they
make available for survivors to submit
requests? What would be the costs to
covered providers of any such
requirements, particularly for smaller
providers?
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
4. Notices, Notifications, and Other
Communications
50. We next seek comment on the
types of information that must or should
be communicated to survivors and other
consumers, and on the ways covered
providers may convey this information.
We believe the Safe Connections Act
contemplates three ways that covered
providers may communicate
information to survivors: (1) a notice
that must be made readily available to
all consumers through the covered
providers’ public-facing communication
avenues, such a notice on a provider’s
website (Notice to Consumers); (2)
information that must be provided at the
time a survivor is submitting a line
separation request, such as in the
instructions for submitting a line
separation request or on the form used
for submitting a request (Concurrent
Notice to Survivors); and (3)
notifications that must be delivered to
survivors after they submit a line
separation request, such as in a
confirmation email for the line
separation submission or a later followup message regarding the status of the
submission (Post-Request Notifications).
51. Notice to Consumers. Recognizing
that the ability to separate a line from
a shared mobile account will only assist
those survivors who are aware of the
option, the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to ‘‘make
information about the options and
process’’ for a line separation request
‘‘readily available to consumers: (1) on
the website and the mobile application
of the provider; (2) in physical stores;
and (3) in other forms of public-facing
consumer communication.’’ We propose
to adopt these requirements in our rules
as a Notice to Consumers, and seek
comment on our proposal and its
implementation, including the burdens
on covered providers.
52. We seek comment on the specific
methods and processes covered
providers should use to provide the
Notice to Consumers, and on the costs
and burdens associated with each of
these proposed requirements,
particularly for small providers. First,
we seek comment on whether we
should provide additional guidance to
covered providers regarding how to
make the notice readily available to
consumers ‘‘on the website and mobile
application of the provider.’’ For
example, should we provide guidance
regarding where and how this
information should be made available
on covered providers’ websites and
mobile applications? Should we
specifically require covered providers to
post a link to the notice on their website
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
homepage or mobile application home
screen? Would a prominent link under
a ‘‘customer service’’ page or ‘‘support’’
section of a covered provider’s website
be ‘‘readily available’’? Should we allow
covered providers to determine the most
appropriate method for making the
notice available, as long as it is
prominent and easy for consumers to
locate?
53. Second, we seek comment on
whether we should provide additional
guidance to covered providers as to how
they should make the Notice to
Consumers readily available in
‘‘physical stores.’’ For example, does
this language require covered providers
to furnish information only upon
consumer request? Or should we require
covered providers to post prominent
signage and/or have handouts
explaining availability of the line
separation option? At a minimum, we
believe any flyers, signage, or other
handouts should be clearly visible to
consumers and easy to understand and
access. We also tentatively conclude
that covered providers should provide
the notice in all languages in which the
provider advertises within that
particular store and on its website, and
seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
54. Third, we seek comment on how
covered providers should implement
the requirement to provide the Notice to
Consumers through ‘‘other forms of
public-facing consumer
communication.’’ What other forms of
public-facing communication do
covered providers employ? Would
covered provider bills, advertisements,
emails, or social media accounts be
covered under this category? If so, how
should covered providers make the
notice readily available through these
avenues or other potential public
awareness campaigns? We seek
comment on what specific methods will
be most effective in helping covered
providers disseminate information to
consumers about line separation
availability.
55. We also seek comment on whether
we should specify what information
covered providers must include in the
Notice to Consumers ‘‘about the options
and process’’ for line separation
requests or whether we should instead
allow covered providers to determine
what information to include. If we
should prescribe the content of the
notice, what information would be most
useful to consumers? We tentatively
conclude we should require covered
providers to inform consumers that the
Safe Connections Act does not permit
covered providers to make a line
separation conditional upon the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15567
imposition of penalties, fees, or other
requirements or limitations, and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
Should we require covered providers to
inform consumers about who qualifies
as a survivor and how a survivor can
request a line separation, or to explain
any operational or technical limitations
for completing line separation requests
and alternative options survivors can
choose to obtain a line separation?
Should we require covered providers to
inform consumers of the service options
that may be available to them, or what
their financial responsibilities will be
after a line separation?
56. Although the Safe Connections
Act does not require covered providers
to include information regarding the
designated program in the Notice to
Consumers, we tentatively conclude
that they should include at least basic
information concerning the availability
of the designated program in the notice.
Given that the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to give
survivors more detailed information
about the designated program upon
receiving a line separation request, do
commenters agree with this approach?
As we noted in our Notice of Inquiry,
‘‘[s]urvivors often face severe financial
hardship when attempting to establish
financial independence from an
abuser,’’ and concerns about
affordability could hold back some
survivors from separating their line from
an abuser’s. We believe that requiring
covered providers to include
information about the availability of
emergency communications support to
help with the costs of a separated line
in the Notice to Consumers may make
the difference for some survivors in
choosing whether or not to pursue a line
separation, is consistent with the goals
of the Safe Connections Act, and would
be minimally burdensome for covered
providers. We seek comment on our
tentative conclusions and proposed
approach. Are there other materials or
information about line separation
requests that would be beneficial for
covered providers to share with
survivors concurrently with the Notice
to Consumers?
57. Concurrent Notice to Survivors.
The Safe Connections Act requires a
covered provider to notify a survivor
seeking a line separation ‘‘through
remote means, provided that remote
means are commercially available and
technically feasible,’’ and ‘‘in clear and
accessible language[,] that the covered
provider may contact the survivor, or
designated representative of the
survivor, to confirm the line separation,
or if the covered provider is unable to
complete the line separation for any
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15568
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
reason.’’ In addition to proposing that
we codify this requirement in our rules,
we seek comment on its meaning. We
tentatively conclude that this
requirement only establishes an
obligation that a covered provider
inform the survivor, at the time the
survivor submits a line separation
request, that the provider may contact
the survivor, or the survivor’s
designated representative, to confirm
the line separation or inform the
survivor if the provider is unable to
complete the line separation. We believe
covered providers should inform
survivors that the covered provider may
contact the survivor as part of any
instructional information provided at
the time of a line separation request. To
the extent feasible, we also believe this
information should be provided
proximate to the moment when the
survivor is asked to provide contact
information and elect the manner the
provider must use for future
communications. We believe that this
approach will allow survivors to make
an informed choice regarding which
contact information and manner of
communication is best given their
particular circumstances. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion
and approach. Is there any reason
providers should instead provide this
information to survivors in a PostRequest Notification? If yes, should we
require that notification be delivered
immediately upon submission of the
request? Should we require providers to
provide this information in both a PostRequest Notification and as a
Concurrent Notice to Survivors?
Regardless of how the information is
delivered, should we allow or require
covered providers to deliver it using the
same means that the survivor used to
submit the line separation request?
Above, we tentatively conclude that
covered providers may offer, and
therefore that survivors may use, nonremote means to submit line separation
requests. If a survivor submits a line
separation request using non-remote
means, does the statute allow us to, and
should we, allow covered providers to
deliver the required information via
non-remote means, such as if the
survivor consents, or must covered
providers deliver the information via
remote means?
58. Post-Request Notifications. As
noted above, covered providers must
allow survivors to select the manner in
which a covered provider will
communicate with the survivor about a
submitted line separation request. We
do not believe that covered providers
must offer all manners of contact, but
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
we do believe that covered providers
must offer at least one manner of contact
that is remote. Consistent with our
tentative conclusion above regarding
remote means of submitting line
separation requests, we believe remote
means of communication are those in
which the covered provider does not
require the survivor to interact in person
with an employee of the provider at a
physical location. We tentatively
conclude that remote means of
communication would include emails,
text messages, pre-recorded voice calls,
push notifications, in-app messages, and
postal mail. We seek comment on this
view. Are there other forms of
communication that would qualify,
such as live phone calls or video chats?
We do not expect to prohibit covered
providers from offering non-remote
forms of communication. Given the
potentially time-sensitive nature of line
separation requests, we do not believe
that covered providers should rely on
communications methods that will not
be delivered directly to survivors, such
as notifications or messages that a
survivor only may see upon logging into
an online account. Additionally, we
tentatively conclude that covered
providers must deliver these
communications in the survivor’s
preferred language if it is one in which
the covered provider advertises. We
seek comment on the costs associated
with our proposed approach for covered
providers, particularly for small
providers.
59. The Safe Connections Act requires
covered providers that receive a line
separation request from a survivor to
inform the survivor of the existence of
the designated program that can provide
emergency communications support to
qualifying survivors suffering from
financial hardship, who might qualify
for the program, and how to participate
in the program. We propose to codify
this requirement and tentatively
conclude that covered providers should
have the flexibility to either provide this
information in a Concurrent Notice to
Survivors or a Post-Request Notification
delivered immediately after a survivor
submits a line separation request. We
also seek comment on exactly what
information covered providers must
convey regarding the designated
program. At a minimum, we expect that
such material would specifically inform
survivors that their participation in the
designated program will be limited to
six months unless they can qualify to
participate in the designated program
under the program’s general eligibility
requirements. We seek comment on
whether we should direct the Universal
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Service Administrative Company
(USAC), in coordination with the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau),
to develop descriptions of the
designated program and ways in which
survivors might apply to the program,
which we would share with covered
providers to use for the required notice.
What would be the costs to covered
providers for these requirements,
particularly for small providers?
60. We also propose to codify the
requirement that a covered provider that
cannot operationally or technically
effectuate a line separation request
must: (1) notify the survivor who
submitted the request of that
infeasibility, and (2) provide the
survivor with information about other
alternatives to submitting a line
separation request, including starting a
new line of service. We believe the
statute clearly contemplates this will be
delivered as a Post-Request Notification.
We further believe that providers should
explain, in this notification, the nature
of the operational or technical
limitations that are preventing the
provider from completing the line
separation as requested and any
alternative options that would allow the
survivor to obtain a line separation. We
also believe that covered providers
should be required to promptly notify
survivors if a line separation request is
rejected for any other reason. We seek
comment on what information should
be provided in rejection notifications,
but at a minimum, we believe that
covered providers should deliver a clear
and concise notification that the request
has been rejected with the basis for the
rejection and information about how the
survivor can either correct any issues,
submit a new line separation request, or
select alternative options to obtain a line
separation, if available. The Safe
Connections Act requires that covered
providers deliver notifications regarding
operational and technical infeasibility at
the time of the request or for requests
made using remote means, not later than
two business days after the covered
provider receives the request. We
tentatively conclude that all rejection
notifications should be delivered within
the same timeframe. We further
tentatively conclude that, if feasible,
covered providers must deliver these
notifications through the manner of
communication selected by the survivor
immediately after the covered provider
receives the request. We seek comment
on our proposed approach.
61. Finally, we seek comment on
whether we should require covered
providers to convey information to
survivors regarding the service options
that may be available to them in a Post-
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Request Notification, as a Concurrent
Notice to Survivors, or both. We also
seek comment on whether we should
require covered providers to inform
survivors that they can choose between
keeping the devices associated with
both their line and the lines of
individuals in their care if they assume
any payment obligations for those
devices or obtaining other devices to use
with the services. If so, we believe
covered providers should be capable of
explaining remaining financial
obligations for the devices and the costs
and payment options for new devices
the covered provider offers. We also
believe that, given the sensitive and
challenging circumstances survivors
may be experiencing, we should require
covered providers to minimize their
communications to survivors and
prohibit communications that are not
directly related to the line separation
request, such as marketing and
advertising communications that are not
related to assisting survivors with
understanding and selecting service
options. Do commenters agree? Are
there other valid, but unrelated, reasons
for which a provider may need to
contact the survivor?
62. Notification to Primary Account
Holders and Abusers. The Safe
Connections Act contemplates that
primary account holders may be
notified regarding successful line
separations on their accounts, and we
believe this notification is likely
necessary in most instances, given
associated account changes that will
occur, including when the abuser is the
primary account holder. We tentatively
conclude that an abuser who is not the
primary account holder must not be
notified when the lines of a survivor
and individuals in the care of the
survivor are separated from a shared
mobile service contract. At the same
time, we believe it is likely the abuser
must necessarily be notified, even if not
the primary account holder, when the
abuser’s line is separated. We seek
comment on our analysis here, and
specifically on how we can best ensure
that survivors are protected in instances
when primary account holders and
abusers whose lines are being separated
must be informed about line
separations. If a covered provider needs
to notify a primary account holder or
abuser whose lines will be separated,
should we require them to set a uniform
amount of time after receiving a line
separation request in which they will
provide the notice? Is it feasible to
require covered providers to wait until
they have approved and processed a
line separation before informing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
primary account holders or abusers
whose lines will be separated, or will
covered providers need to communicate
with them before that point to
implement account changes? Will
covered providers be able to process all
necessary account and service plan
changes as needed if we implement
such delays? When necessary, how
should primary account holders and
abusers whose lines are separated be
notified of any account and billing
changes? Additionally, should we
prescribe any particular content of these
notifications? Is there any language or
terms providers should avoid using
when notifying primary account holders
and abusers whose lines are separated?
63. Informing Survivors When
Primary Account Holders and Abusers
Will Receive Notification of Separations.
We propose to codify the Safe
Connections Act’s requirement that
covered providers inform survivors who
separate a line from a shared mobile
contract but are not the primary account
holder of the date on which the covered
provider intends to give any formal
notification to the primary account
holder, and also tentatively conclude
that covered providers inform survivors
when the covered provider will inform
the abuser of a line separation involving
the abuser’s line. We seek comment on
when covered providers must inform
the survivor of the date the covered
provider will notify the primary account
holder and abuser (when the abuser’s
line is being separated). How soon
before the primary account holder and
abuser receive notification must the
survivor be informed? Is there any
language or terms providers should
avoid using when notifying survivors?
5. Prohibited Practices in Connection
With Line Separation Requests
64. Except as specifically provided,
the Safe Connections Act prohibits
covered providers from making line
separations contingent on: (1) payment
of a fee, penalty, or other charge; (2)
maintaining contractual or billing
responsibility of a separated line with
the provider; (3) approval of separation
by the primary account holder, if the
primary account holder is not the
survivor; (4) a prohibition or limitation,
including payment of a fee, penalty, or
other charge, on number portability,
provided such portability is technically
feasible, or a request to change phone
numbers; (5) a prohibition or limitation
on the separation of lines as a result of
arrears accrued by the account; (6) an
increase in the rate charged for the
mobile service plan of the primary
account holder with respect to service
on any remaining line or lines; or (7)
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15569
any other requirement or limitation not
specifically permitted by the Safe
Connections Act. We propose to codify
these prohibitions and limitations in our
rules, and seek comment on our
proposal, as well as implementation of
these prohibitions, as described below.
65. Fees, Penalties, and Other
Charges. We believe that the Safe
Connections Act’s prohibition on
making line separations contingent on
payment of a fee, penalty, or other
charge is unambiguous. We also believe
this clause would prohibit covered
providers from enforcing any
contractual early termination fees that
may be triggered by a line separation
request, if the line separation request
was made pursuant to section 345,
regardless of whether a survivor
continues to receive service from the
provider as part of a new arrangement
upon a line separation or completely
ceases to receive service from the
provider. We seek comment on our
proposed interpretation and any
burdens it may impose on covered
providers.
66. Number Portability. We believe
that the Safe Connections Act effectively
prohibits covered providers from
conditioning a line separation on the
customer maintaining service with the
provider, provided that such portability
is technically feasible, and that this
prohibition applies to any lines that
remain on the original account and any
lines that are separated. We propose to
interpret this provision to mean that
both the party that will remain
associated with the existing account and
the party that will be associated with
the separated lines must be permitted to
port their numbers at the time of the
line separation or after, without fees or
penalties, provided such portability is
technically feasible. We seek comment
on this view. Below, we discuss further
the contours of technical feasibility of
number porting within the confines of
the Safe Connections Act.
67. Changing Phone Numbers. We
seek comment on how best to interpret
the Safe Connections Act’s provision
that prevents a covered provider from
prohibiting or limiting a survivor’s
ability to request a phone number
change as part of a line separation
request. We note that as a general
matter, survivors who are willing to
change their phone numbers can start a
new account and obtain a new number
without having to go through the line
separation process. Under what
circumstances might a survivor want to
both secure a line separation and change
phone numbers, and are there any
particular implications of those
circumstances that we should address?
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15570
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
For example, a survivor who is the
primary account owner requesting
separation of an abuser’s line from the
account might want to keep the account
to maintain any promotional deals,
complete device pay-off, or avoid early
termination fees, but change a telephone
number for safety reasons. We believe
that this provision of the Safe
Connections Act would bar covered
providers from prohibiting such
telephone number change requests or
attaching a fee or penalty for doing so.
We seek comment on this analysis, and
any other circumstances which we
should address.
68. Rate Increases. The Safe
Connections Act prohibits covered
providers from making a line separation
request contingent on an increase in the
rate charged for the mobile service plan
of the primary account holder with
respect to service on any remaining
lines, but also provides that the
prohibitions should not be construed
‘‘to require a covered provider to
provide a rate plan for the primary
account holder that is not otherwise
commercially available.’’ To reconcile
these two provisions, we make several
tentative conclusions and seek comment
on them. First, we believe the provision
prohibiting covered providers from
making a line separation contingent on
a rate increase means that a covered
provider cannot deny a survivor’s line
separation request if the primary
account holder for the remaining lines
does not agree to a rate increase.
Second, we believe that provision also
means that a covered provider cannot
force the remaining primary account
holder to switch to a service plan that
has a higher rate, although the person
may elect to switch to a rate plan that
has a higher or lower rate from among
those that are commercially available.
Third, because the Safe Connections Act
does not require covered providers to
offer rate plans that are not otherwise
commercially available, we believe
covered providers are not required to
offer survivors or remaining parties a
specialized rate plan that is not
commercially available if the party does
not choose to continue the existing rate
plan. Are there other ways to reconcile
and interpret these two provisions? We
do not read the Safe Connections Act to
restrict covered providers from offering
alternative rate plans to the party who
remains associated with the original
account. Additionally, we seek
comment on whether we should require
covered providers to provide rate plan
options during the line separation
process to the customer who remains
associated with the existing account.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
69. Contractual and Billing
Responsibilities. We seek comment on
the Safe Connections Act’s prohibition
on making a line separation contingent
on ‘‘maintaining contractual or billing
responsibility of a separated line with
the [covered] provider.’’ Specifically, we
believe this prohibition means that the
party with the separated line must have
the option to select any commercially
available prepaid or non-contractual
service plans offered by the covered
provider, whether that party is a
survivor or abuser. Likewise, we believe
this prohibition would also prohibit a
covered provider from requiring a
survivor who separates a line from
maintaining the same contract,
including any specified contract length
or terms, as the account from which
those lines were separated (i.e.,
continuing a contract for the remainder
of the time on the original account for
the new account or requiring the
survivor to maintain all previouslysubscribed services (voice, text, data)
under the new account). We also believe
this provision can be interpreted as
prohibiting covered providers from
requiring that separated lines remain
with that covered provider’s service.
This is consistent with our belief that
the Safe Connections Act does not allow
covered providers to charge early
termination fees to survivors. We seek
comment on these views.
70. Other Prohibited Restrictions and
Limitations. Beyond the issues
discussed above, do the prohibited
restrictions and limitations in the Safe
Connections Act contain any other
ambiguities or raise other implications
for covered providers that we should
address? Additionally, although the Safe
Connections Act includes a catch-all
provision that prohibits covered
providers from making line separations
contingent on any other requirement or
limitation not specifically permitted by
the Safe Connections Act, we seek
comment on whether we should specify
any other requirements or limitations as
prohibited in our rules. For example,
should we specify that a covered
provider must effectuate a SIM change
sought in connection with a valid line
separation request even if the primary
account holder has activated account
takeover protections for the account,
such as a block on all SIM changes?
Does the catch-all provision give
sufficient direction to covered providers
on what else is prohibited?
71. Provider Terms and Conditions.
Given the general prohibition on
restrictions and limitations for line
separation requests, we seek comment
on whether covered providers can
require customers involved in line
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
separations to comply with the general
terms and conditions associated with
using a covered provider’s services, so
long as those terms and conditions do
not contain the enumerated prohibitions
above and do not otherwise hinder a
survivor from obtaining a line
separation. If so, under what legal
authority? Are there particular
restrictions in existing terms and
conditions that could be used to prevent
line separations that we should
explicitly prohibit in our rules? Are
there other ways that providers can use
their terms and conditions to hinder
line separations? We note that this
approach would permit covered
providers to suspend or terminate the
services on the existing and new
accounts for violations of the provider’s
terms and conditions at any time after
the line separation is completed.
72. Credit Checks. We also seek
comment on whether the Safe
Connections Act prohibits covered
providers from making a line separation
contingent on the results of a credit
check or other proof of a party’s ability
to pay. We recognize that providers may
currently require individuals to
complete credit checks or demonstrate
ability to pay to ensure that customers
can meet their payment obligations for
services and devices. However, we
acknowledged in the Notice of Inquiry
that some survivors may not be able to
demonstrate their financial stability as a
result of their abusive situation and
therefore may be foreclosed from
obtaining services—and the record
supported this finding.
73. Although the designated program
may allow some survivors experiencing
financial hardship to obtain services
without payment issues, we are
concerned about situations where a
survivor does not qualify for the
designated program and also fails to
meet the credit standards deemed
acceptable by providers. To account for
these circumstances, we tentatively
conclude that we should specify in our
rules that covered providers cannot
make line separations contingent on the
results of a credit check or other proof
of a party’s ability to pay. Consistent
with the approach we took in the ACP
Order, we would still permit covered
providers to perform credit checks that
are part of their routine sign-up process
for all customers so long as they do not
take the results of the credit check into
account when determining whether they
can effectuate a line separation. We also
tentatively conclude that providers
should be prohibited from relying on
credit check results to determine the
service plans from which a survivor is
eligible to select and whether a survivor
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
can take on the financial responsibilities
for devices associated with lines used
by the survivor or individuals in the
care of the survivor. We seek comment
on these tentative conclusions. We also
seek comment on whether covered
providers can use credit check results to
determine which devices may be offered
to a survivor for new purchases. We
note that if we allow covered providers
to require parties to comply with
standard terms and conditions for
services and devices, they would be able
to enforce suspensions, terminations, or
other remedies against customers for
violating provisions described in those
terms in conditions, such as failure to
meet payment obligations.
74. If commenters believe that we
should instead specify that covered
providers should be permitted to rely on
credit checks or other proof of payment
capabilities in any of the circumstances
described above, we ask commenters to
describe how the Safe Connections Act
provides us with the legal authority to
do so, given its prohibition on making
line separations contingent on ‘‘any
other limitation or requirement listed
under subsection (c)’’ of the Safe
Connections Act. Additionally, if the
Safe Connections Act permits covered
providers to make line separations
contingent on the result of a credit
check or other proof of payment
capabilities, should we require them to
inform customers who fail to meet the
provider’s standards of other options,
such as assistance through the
designated program (if available),
prepaid plans the provider might offer,
and the ability to switch to another
provider that may be able to
accommodate the survivor? Are these
alternatives adequate to provide
survivors with communications services
they need?
6. Financial Responsibilities and
Account Billing Following Line
Separations
75. The Safe Connections Act sets out
requirements for financial
responsibilities and account billing
following line separations. Specifically,
unless otherwise ordered by a court,
when a survivor separates lines from a
shared mobile service contract, the
survivor must assume any financial
responsibilities, including monthly
service costs, for the transferred
numbers beginning on the date when
the lines are transferred. Survivors are
not obligated to assume financial
responsibility for mobile devices
associated with those separated lines,
unless the survivor purchased the
mobile devices, affirmatively elects to
maintain possession of the mobile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
devices, or is otherwise ordered to by a
court. When an abuser’s line is
separated from an existing account, the
survivor has no further financial
responsibilities for the services and
mobile device associated with the
telephone number of that separated line.
The statute also gives the Commission
authority to establish additional rules
concerning financial responsibilities
and account billing following line
separations. We propose to codify the
statutory requirements and seek
comment on any administrative
challenges or other issues regarding
billing and financial responsibilities
that may arise from line separations that
we should address.
76. We are particularly interested in
learning how providers handle account
billing issues following line separations
they may perform now and whether the
line separation requirements in the Safe
Connections Act present new
administrative challenges. We note that
the Safe Connections Act requires
covered providers to effectuate a line
separation no later than two business
days after receiving the request,
meaning that account changes may need
to occur in the middle of a billing cycle.
If the Safe Connections Act
requirements are different from
providers’ existing practices, how
difficult would it be for providers to
change their practices to meet the
requirements? Are there particular
challenges for smaller providers or those
providers that may not conduct their
own billing?
77. We recognize that there may be
unique challenges with reassigning or
separating contracts for device
purchases. We believe the Safe
Connections Act makes clear that, as a
general matter, the individuals who
purchased a device will maintain
payment obligations for that device
following a line separation. As the Safe
Connections Act specifies, however, the
survivor will take on the payment
obligations for any devices the survivor
elects to keep following separation of
the survivor’s line and the lines of those
in the care of the survivor. We also
believe it is clear that when an abuser’s
line is separated, the survivor is no
longer responsible for the payment
obligation for the device associated with
that line. We tentatively conclude that
if the abuser’s line is separated and the
abuser was the purchaser of any devices
associated with lines that will remain
on the account, the survivor can elect to
keep those devices and take on the
payment obligations for them. We seek
comment on these proposed
interpretations and the administrative
challenges of implementing them. Do
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15571
providers have the ability to reassign
device payment contracts from one
customer to another? We know
anecdotally that some providers offer
multi-device payment contracts, and
these contracts often involve device
discounts or associated service plan
discounts. Some of the above separation
scenarios may require splitting the
payment obligations for devices that are
on the same contract. Do providers have
the ability to do this, especially in cases
where the plan is no longer
commercially available? How would
they make adjustments to device or
service plan discounts? Aside from
reassigning or splitting contracts, does
the Safe Connections Act allow covered
providers to require the parties who are
financially responsible for devices
following separations to pay the full
remaining balance of any devices or sign
up for a new device payment plan at the
time of the separation, or must they
allow those parties to complete existing
payment plans? We are particularly
interested if this is permitted under the
Safe Connections Act when it is the
survivor taking on the payment
obligation. Additionally, how would
providers manage device payments
when a line separation occurs midway
through a billing cycle? Does the Safe
Connections Act require them to prorate
the payments?
78. Finally, we seek comment on how
covered providers can manage
previously-accrued arrears on an
account following a line separation. We
tentatively conclude that the arrears
should stay with the primary account
holder. For example, if the abuser’s line
is separated and the abuser was the
primary account holder, the arrears
would be reassigned to the abuser’s new
account. Similarly, if the survivor was
the primary account holder and
separates the abuser’s line, the arrears
would stay with the survivor’s account.
Conversely, if the survivor’s line is
separated and the abuser was the
primary account holder, the arrears
would stay with the abuser’s account. Is
this tentative conclusion administrable
by covered providers?
7. Provider Obligations Related to
Processing Line Separation Requests
79. In this section we seek comment
on several topics concerning covered
providers’ obligations related to
processing line separation requests.
80. Number Porting. Because the Safe
Connections Act preserves survivors’
ability to port their numbers in
connection with line separation
requests, we seek comment on the
technical feasibility of such number
ports. Generally, number portability
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15572
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
allows consumers to keep their
telephone numbers when they change
carriers and remain in the same
location. Under the Commission’s
current rules, wireless carriers must port
numbers to other wireless carriers upon
request without regard to proximity of
the requesting carrier’s switch to the
porting-out carrier’s switch, and must
port numbers to wireline carriers within
the number’s originating rate center. We
believe these same number porting
obligations apply for lines that have
been separated pursuant to section 345;
we do not believe that there is anything
unique about number ports associated
with line separations that would make
such ports more or less technically
feasible than under other circumstances.
Accordingly, we tentatively conclude
that any ports that covered providers are
currently required to, and technically
capable of, completing would be
technically feasible under the Safe
Connections Act. We also tentatively
conclude that should the requirements
or capabilities for porting change in the
future, any newly-feasible ports also
will be considered technically feasible
when sought in connection with a line
separation. We seek comment on our
analysis and tentative conclusions.
81. We separately seek comment on
the operational feasibility of separating
lines and porting numbers at the same
time. Have providers developed
procedures to handle this already? If
not, how burdensome would it be to do
so? Because customers typically initiate
port requests through a new provider,
would it be feasible for survivors to seek
a line separation and number port at the
same time? Currently, customers
seeking to port a telephone number to
a new wireless provider must provide
the new provider with the telephone
number, account number, ZIP code, and
any passcode on the account. Many
wireless providers also require
customers to authenticate the port
request through a port-out PIN. Is it
feasible for a survivor to have this
information to provide to a new carrier
to request a port before a line separation
request has been effectuated and a new
account established for the survivor? If
a survivor initiates a port request with
a new provider, would that request
remain pending and then be processed
as soon as the line separation with the
old provider is effectuated? Do we need
to modify our number porting rules to
permit these processes? For instance,
because of the complexity of these port
requests, would they fall outside the
timelines for processing simple port
requests established by the Commission
and industry agreement? What
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
additional administrative and survivor
confidentiality challenges may arise for
processing line separations and port
requests if the survivor is also seeking
to qualify for the designated program
with the new provider?
82. We also seek comment on steps
we can take to prevent port-out fraud. In
the 2021 SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud
NPRM, we asked if we should require
providers to authenticate customers
through means other than the
information used to validate simple port
requests, such as through the use of a
PIN established with their current
provider, before effectuating a port-out
request, and several commenters replied
in the affirmative. Above, we ask if we
should require covered providers to
allow survivors to select whether they
intend to port their numbers during the
line separation process. If we do, should
we also require covered providers to
require survivors to establish a PIN or
another authentication key used by the
provider to process port-out requests if
the survivor indicates the intent to portout numbers?
83. Compliance with CPNI Protections
and Other Law Enforcement
Requirements. As discussed above,
section 222 of the Communications Act
obligates telecommunications carriers to
protect the privacy and security of
information about their customers to
which they have access as a result of
their unique position as network
operators. Section 222(a) requires
carriers to protect the confidentiality of
proprietary information of and relating
to their customers. Subject to certain
exceptions, section 222(c)(1) provides
that a carrier may use, disclose, or
permit access to CPNI that it has
received by virtue of its provision of a
telecommunications service only: (1) as
required by law; (2) with the customer’s
approval; or (3) in its provision of the
telecommunications service from which
such information is derived or its
provision of services necessary to or
used in the provision of such
telecommunications service. The
Commission’s rules implementing
section 222 are designed to ensure that
telecommunications carriers establish
effective safeguards to protect against
unauthorized use or disclosure of CPNI.
Among other things, the rules require
carriers to appropriately authenticate
customers seeking access to CPNI. Our
CPNI rules define a ‘‘customer’’ as ‘‘a
person or entity to which the
telecommunications carrier is currently
providing service.’’ Our rules also
require carriers to take reasonable
measures to both discover and protect
against attempts to gain unauthorized
access to CPNI and to notify customers
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
immediately of certain account changes,
including whenever a customer’s
password, response to a carrier-designed
back-up means of authentication, online
account, or address of record is created
or changed.
84. In light of the protections afforded
to CPNI by section 222 and our
implementing rules, we seek comment
on how we can design the line
separation rules to preserve those
protections. In particular, we seek to
understand who is a ‘‘customer’’ under
our rules with respect to plans with
multiple lines or users and whether the
answer to that question affects how
CPNI on such accounts must be
protected following a line separation.
For instance, if the abuser is the primary
account holder, and the abuser’s line is
separated from the existing account,
should the covered provider prevent the
new primary account holder from
accessing any historical CPNI associated
with the account? Should the primary
account holder’s historical CPNI move
with the separated user to a new
account? If a survivor who is not the
primary account holder separates the
survivor’s line from a shared mobile
service contract, should the historical
CPNI from that line be moved over to
the new account? Do covered providers
have the technical capability to
complete such moves? Are there other
issues that may arise as a result of line
separations concerning the protection of
CPNI? For example, our rules require
telecommunications carriers to notify
customers ‘‘immediately’’ whenever a
password, customer response to a backup means of authentication for lost or
forgotten passwords, online account, or
address of record is created or changed.
We tentatively conclude that this rule
should not apply in cases where the
changes are made as a result of a line
separation request pursuant to section
345, as it would run counter to the
intentions of the Safe Connections Act.
We seek comment on our tentative
conclusion.
85. Aside from CPNI, the Safe
Connections Act requires us to consider
the effect of line separations and any
rules we adopt on any other legal or law
enforcement requirements. We seek
comment on what other legal or law
enforcement requirements may by
impacted by line separations or the
rules and proposals we discuss in this
NPRM and how we can ensure our rules
align with those requirements.
86. Other Issues Related to Processing
Requests. We seek comment on whether
covered providers may face any other
issues when processing line separation
requests. For instance, would covered
providers face administrative challenges
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
if multiple survivors on an account each
seek line separations at the same time?
Are there any changes to processes that
providers have to make with respect to
the North America Numbering Plan and
Reassigned Numbers Databases to
comply with the Safe Connections Act’s
requirements? Would there be any
issues if survivors choose to cancel their
requests or submitted multiple requests
in the same year? To what extent are
any issues raised unique to the Safe
Connections Act’s requirements?
87. Provider Policies and Practices.
Given the importance of line separation
to survivors seeking to distance
themselves from their abusers, we seek
comment on the extent to which we
should require covered providers to
establish policies and practices to
ensure that they process line separation
requests effectively. At a minimum, we
tentatively conclude that all employees
who may interact with a survivor
regarding a line separation must be
trained on how to assist them or on how
to direct them to employees who have
received such training. What would be
the burden on covered providers,
particularly small providers, for any
potential requirements we may adopt?
88. We also seek comment on what
measures covered providers can take to
detect and prevent fraud and abuse. Are
there any particular requirements we
should establish in the rules we adopt?
Should we establish rules requiring
covered providers to investigate and
remediate fraud and abuse in a timely
manner? Should we require providers to
investigate cases where the primary
account holder asserts that a line
separation was fraudulent? Should
providers create a process for primary
account holders to report allegedly
fraudulent line separations, and what
course of action should providers take
in response? What evidence is sufficient
to show that a line separation was
fraudulent, given the risk that an abuser
may attempt to reverse a legitimate line
separation by claiming it was
fraudulent? How difficult will it be for
covered providers to reverse line
separations they discover were
fraudulent?
89. Other Measures To Prevent
Abusers from Controlling Survivors. We
are concerned that if a survivor’s abuser
becomes aware that the survivor is
seeking a line separation, the abuser
may seek to prevent the line separation
or preemptively cancel the line of
service. We seek comment on steps
covered providers can take to hinder
those efforts. For example, should we
require covered providers to lock an
account to prevent all SIM changes,
number ports, and line cancelations as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
soon as possible and no more than 12
hours after receiving a line separation
request from a survivor, to prevent the
abuser or other users from removing the
survivor’s access to the line before the
request is processed? We also seek
comment on whether we should require
covered providers to keep records of
SIM changes, number ports, and line
cancelations and reverse or remediate
any of those that were processed shortly
before receiving a valid line separation
request for numbers in the request,
because the SIM change, number port,
or cancelation could have been an
attempt by an abuser to prevent a line
separation. Would these requirements
be technically and administratively
feasible? If so, how much time prior to
the line separation request should a SIM
change, number port, or line cancelation
be considered improper and subject to
this remediation? Additionally, we seek
comment on how covered providers
should handle situations where an
abuser contacts the covered provider to
attempt to stop or reverse a line
separation, such as by claiming the
request is fraudulent. We tentatively
conclude that covered providers should
complete or maintain line separations
and make a record of the complaint in
the existing and new account in the
event further evidence shows that the
request was in fact fraudulent. What
would be the burden on covered
providers, particularly small providers,
for implementing any of these
requirements? Finally, we seek
comment on what steps covered
providers can take, if any, to remove or
assist survivors with removing any
spyware that an abuser may have
installed on devices of the survivor or
individuals in the survivor’s care.
8. Implementation
90. Timeframe. We seek comment on
the appropriate implementation
timeframe for the requirements we
propose in this NPRM to implement the
new section 345. How long will covered
providers need to implement the
necessary technical and programmatic
changes to comply with the
requirements under section 345 and our
proposed rules? What existing processes
do covered providers have in place that
would enable efficient implementation
of our proposed rules? Are there
challenges unique to small covered
providers that may require a longer
implementation period than larger
covered providers? If so, how should we
define ‘‘small’’ covered provider for
these purposes? What would be an
appropriate timeframe for small covered
providers, balancing the costs and
burdens with implementing our
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15573
proposed rules against the critical
public safety interests at stake for
survivors?
91. Effective Date. The Safe
Connections Act states that the line
separation requirements in the statute
‘‘shall take effect 60 days after the date
on which the Federal Communications
Commission adopts the rules
implementing’’ those requirements, and
we propose to make final rules effective
in accordance with that timeline. We
note, however, that some of the rules to
be adopted pursuant to this NPRM may
require review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) prior to
becoming effective under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). While we believe
the PRA provisions for emergency
processing may facilitate harmonization
of these statutory requirements, we seek
comment on the implications of the Safe
Connections Act’s effective date
provision for PRA review. Are there any
steps we should take to preemptively
address potential inconsistencies
between OMB approval of final rules
and the statutory effective date set forth
in the Safe Connections Act?
92. Liability Protection. Under the
Safe Connections Act, covered providers
and their officers, directors, employees,
vendors and agents are exempt from
liability ‘‘for any claims deriving from
an action taken or omission made with
respect to compliance’’ with the Safe
Connections Act and ‘‘the rules adopted
to implement’’ the Safe Connections
Act. Congress made clear, however, that
nothing in that provision ‘‘shall limit
the authority of the Commission to
enforce [the Safe Connections Act] or
any rules or regulations promulgated by
the Commission pursuant to [the Safe
Connections Act].’’ We seek comment
on how, if at all, our rules should
account for these provisions.
93. Enforcement. We seek comment
on issues related to enforcement of the
rules contemplated in this NPRM.
Should the Commission adopt rules
governing the enforcement of the
specific requirements, or should the
Commission employ the general
enforcement mechanisms to impose
monetary penalties on noncompliant
service providers set forth in section 503
of the Communications Act, as well as
in the Lifeline and ACP rules? Is there
alternative authority for enforcement,
such as derived from the Safe
Connections Act, that we should
consider? Given the potentially serious
safety issues that could result from a
covered provider’s noncompliance with
rules implementing the line separation
obligations, we seek comment on
appropriate, specific penalties that
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15574
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
could be adopted to incentivize
compliance with program requirements.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Ensuring the Privacy of Calls and
Texts Messages to Domestic Abuse
Hotlines
94. The Safe Connections Act directs
us to consider whether and how to
‘‘establish, and update on a monthly
basis, a central database of covered
hotlines to be used by a covered
provider or a wireline provider of voice
service’’ and whether and how to
‘‘require a covered provider or a
wireline provider of voice service to
omit from consumer-facing logs of calls
or text messages any records of calls or
text messages to covered hotlines in
[such a] central database, while
maintaining internal records of those
calls and messages.’’ Below, we propose
to establish such a central database, but
we begin our discussion of this
provision of the statute by proposing to
require covered providers to omit calls
or text messages to the relevant hotlines
and analyzing the scope of that
obligation.
1. Creating an Obligation To Protect the
Privacy of Calls and Text Messages to
Hotlines
95. We propose to adopt a
requirement that covered providers and
wireline providers of voice service omit
from consumer-facing logs of calls or
text messages any records of calls or text
messages to covered hotlines that
appear in a central database, while
maintaining internal records of those
calls and text messages. Congress has
found that ‘‘perpetrators of [sexual]
violence and abuse . . . increasingly
use technological and communications
tools to exercise control over, monitor,
and abuse their victims’’ and that
‘‘[s]afeguards within communications
services can serve a role in preventing
abuse and narrowing the digital divide
experienced by survivors of abuse.’’ As
discussed above, these findings are
supported by, among other things, field
work with domestic violence survivors
demonstrating the risk of abusers’
accessing domestic abuse survivors’
digital footprint, particularly call logs.
The NVRDC observed in response to our
Notice of Inquiry how ‘‘[c]all and text
records to and from covered
organizations would likely tip off an
abuser who is closely monitoring all
communications.’’ We are concerned
that survivors may be deterred by the
threat of an abuser using access to call
and text logs to determine whether the
survivor is in the process of seeking
help, seeking to report, or seeking to
flee, particularly given the desire for
survivors to maintain secrecy and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
privacy. We therefore tentatively
conclude that protecting the privacy of
calls and text messages to hotlines as
described by the Safe Connections Act
is in the public interest, and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
96. The Safe Connections Act
specifically requires the Commission to
consider certain matters when
determining whether to adopt a
requirement for protecting the privacy
of calls and text messages to hotlines.
Specifically, section 5(b)(3)(B) of the
Safe Connections Act requires us to
consider the technical feasibility of such
a requirement—that is, ‘‘the ability of a
covered provider or a wireline provider
of voice service to . . . identify logs that
are consumer-facing . . . and . . . omit
certain consumer-facing logs, while
maintaining internal records of such
calls and text messages,’’ as well as ‘‘any
other factors associated with the
implementation of [such requirements],
including factors that may impact
smaller providers.’’ Section 5(b)(3)(B)
also requires us to consider ‘‘the ability
of law enforcement agencies or
survivors to access a log of calls or text
messages in a criminal investigation or
civil proceeding.’’
97. Covered providers and wireline
providers of voice service have the
ability to identify consumer-facing call
and text logs. In fact, many service
providers openly promote the ability of
consumers to access such logs, and we
believe these providers should be able
to identify, and withhold as necessary,
the call and text log information. We
seek comment on this belief and
whether there are any operational or
technical impediments to any covered
providers or wireline providers of voice
service selectively omitting calls and
text messages from certain telephone
numbers from call and text logs. We
note that there is no discussion of such
concerns in the record in response to
the Notice of Inquiry and it would seem
that whatever processes translate
internal service provider data (such as
call records) to the web page or billing
output that consumers see can be
programmed to also filter out certain
records. Indeed, neither of the two trade
associations representing substantially
different segments of what would be
covered providers and/or providers of
wireline voice service raise
insurmountable issues relating to
selectively omitting calls and text
messages from call and text logs.
98. Further, records of calls and text
messages do not appear to exist solely
in the form of call logs, but, rather,
independent records—that is, some
processing must be applied to the
records to create call logs. As a result,
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
we expect service providers should be
able to maintain log records of calls and
text messages that they omit from
consumer-facing logs when such records
are required for any criminal or civil
enforcement proceeding—or for any
other reason. As a safeguard, we
propose to explicitly require service
providers to maintain the internal
records of calls and text messages
omitted from consumer-facing logs. We
seek comment on this approach.
99. We seek comment on our proposal
and our consideration of the matters
described in section 5(b)(3)(B) of the
Safe Connections Act. Does the
appearance of calls and text messages to
hotlines in call and text logs indeed
pose a risk to survivors and also
sometimes deter use of hotlines? Is our
tentative conclusion that it is possible
for covered providers and wireline
providers of voice service to omit
certain call and text message records
from consumer-facing logs while
maintaining such call and text message
records for other purposes, such as
when a survivor or law enforcement
needs access to them, correct? How
expensive would establishing and
maintaining such a system be? What
level of effort would be required?
100. Do service providers using
certain transmission technologies
(wireless versus wireline, time division
multiplexing versus Voice over internet
Protocol, etc.) or of a certain size (such
as smaller service providers) face
unique challenges that we should
consider? Are these concerns great
enough to exempt certain service
providers? We are concerned that
creating a patchwork of service
providers subject to requirements to
protect the privacy of calls and text
messages to hotlines may create
confusion for survivors, who may not
know if they can rely on the privacy of
their calls and text messages to hotlines.
Do commenters agree? If exemptions or
extensions are necessary for some
providers, how can we mitigate these
concerns? If commenters believe that
this can be done through service
provider communications, we request
that such commenters propose how
such communications could be
conducted in instances in which the
survivor is not the primary account
holder.
101. Are there any matters and
considerations unique to protecting the
privacy of text messages sent to
hotlines? Due to the popularity of text
messaging, we believe it reasonable to
assume that some survivors seek to
communicate with hotlines through
such means, and we also believe that
any requirements should apply equally
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
to call and text logs. Several states,
localities, and non-profits have created
text messaging hotlines that allow
survivors to more discreetly seek help in
the event that making a phone call
might jeopardize their safety. While not
all covered hotlines will provide text
messaging options for survivors of
domestic violence, we believe that
requiring service providers to omit text
messages to hotlines from text logs will
help protect and save survivors. We
seek comment on our proposed analysis.
102. We also seek comment on
whether we should establish exceptions
pertaining to particular calls or text
messages. If we were to create
exceptions, how should survivors who
may otherwise rely on the privacy of all
calls and text messages to hotlines be
made aware that certain calls and text
messages may be disclosed in logs due
to exceptions? How often are toll calls
or usage-fee-inducing mobile calls and
text messages made to hotlines? Are
there any other potentially valid bases
for exceptions based on particular calls
and text messages and, if so, how
should such exceptions be
implemented?
2. Defining the Scope of the Obligation
103. How we define certain critical
terms significantly affects which service
providers are subject to any obligation
to protect the privacy of calls and text
messages to hotlines, the extent of such
obligations, and to which hotlines the
obligations apply. In addition to seeking
comment on defining the following
terms, are there any other terms that
commenters believe we should define
and, if so, how should we define them?
104. Covered Provider. We propose to
apply the obligation to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines to all ‘‘covered provider(s),’’ as
defined in the Safe Connections Act.
Therefore, we propose to use the same
definition of covered provider used for
the purpose of applying line separation
obligations under section 345 of the
Communications Act, as added by the
Safe Connections Act. Do commenters
agree that this is the appropriate
definition? If not, we invite commenters
to suggest alternative definitions. If we
create exceptions or delayed
implementation for smaller covered
providers, should this be reflected in
our rules as an exception to the
definition of covered provider or in
another manner?
105. Voice Service. In addition to
covered providers, we propose to apply
the obligation to protect the privacy of
calls and text messages to hotlines to all
‘‘wireline providers of voice service,’’ as
suggested by the Safe Connections Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
We propose to base our definition of
‘‘voice service’’ on the definition in
section 5 of the Safe Connections Act.
That provision references section 4(a) of
the TRACED Act, which defines ‘‘voice
service’’ as ‘‘any service that is
interconnected with the public switched
telephone network and that furnishes
voice communications to an end user
using resources from the North
American Numbering Plan,’’ including
transmissions from facsimile machines
and computers and ‘‘any service that
requires internet protocol-compatible
customer premises equipment . . . and
permits out-bound calling, whether or
not the service is one-way or two-way
voice over internet protocol.’’ We note
that the Commission has previously
interpreted that provision of the
TRACED Act when implementing that
legislation’s requirements and mirrored
the definition established in the
legislation in the Commission’s rules.
We seek comment on this proposal.
106. We tentatively conclude that we
need not define the term ‘‘wireline
provider’’ given what we consider to be
its plain meaning when used in
conjunction with ‘‘of voice service,’’ as
we propose to define the latter term. Do
commenters agree that the words
‘‘wireline provider’’ are sufficiently
unambiguous to not require definition?
If not, we request that such commenters
suggest an appropriate definition. If we
create exceptions or delayed
implementation for smaller wireline
providers of voice service, should this
be reflected in our rules as an exception
to the definition of ‘‘wireline provider of
voice service,’’ or in another manner?
107. Other Potential Service Providers
to Include. We seek comment on
whether the public interest would be
served by including providers of voice
service that offer service using fixed
wireless and fixed satellite service so
that survivors have no doubt that when
they call or text covered hotlines, their
calls will not appear in call or text logs.
Neither fixed wireless nor fixed satellite
providers of voice service appear to be
‘‘covered providers’’ or ‘‘wireline
providers of voice service.’’ The services
that they provide are not Commercial
Mobile Radio Service or Private Mobile
Radio Service because they do not meet
the definitions in the Communications
Act, and, therefore, providers of such
services are not ‘‘covered providers.’’
Further, neither of these services is a
‘‘wireline’’ service. Do commenters
agree that neither fixed wireless nor
fixed satellite providers are covered by
the terms ‘‘covered provider’’ or
‘‘wireline provider of voice service’’ in
the Safe Connections Act? Do
commenters support including those
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15575
types of providers in the obligation to
protect the privacy of calls and text
messages to hotlines? If so, under what
authority might the Commission impose
such an obligation? Are there unique
burdens that imposing an obligation to
protect the privacy of calls and text
messages to hotlines would impose on
fixed wireless and fixed satellite
providers of voice service? If
commenters support including these
types of providers, we request
suggestions for how to implement this
broadened scope in our proposed rules.
In addition, we tentatively conclude
that intermediate providers would not
be considered covered providers,
consistent with the TRACED Act’s
definition of ‘‘voice service’’ and seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
Do commenters believe there are
additional types of providers that we
should include?
108. Call. The Safe Connections Act
does not define the term ‘‘call,’’ nor is
it defined in the Communications Act.
We propose to define a ‘‘call’’ as a voice
service transmission, regardless of
whether such transmission is
completed. We believe that given the
expansive definition of ‘‘voice service,’’
which we propose to define without
regard to whether it be wireline or
wireless, such term sufficiently captures
the means by which survivors would
use the public switched telephone
network to reach covered hotlines.
Although we suspect that only
completed transmissions would appear
on call logs, out of an abundance of
caution, we propose to include
completed and uncompleted
transmissions in the definition of ‘‘call.’’
Do commenters agree with our proposed
definition? Are there any transmissions
handled by covered providers and
providers of wireline voice service that
we should consider to be ‘‘calls’’ that
would be excluded from this definition?
109. Text Message. We propose to
adopt the same definition of ‘‘text
message’’ as given in the Safe
Connections Act. Such term is defined
in the legislation as having the same
meaning as in section 227(e)(8) of the
Communications Act, which is ‘‘a
message consisting of text, images,
sounds, or other information that is
transmitted to or from a device that is
identified as the receiving or
transmitting device by means of a 10digit telephone number’’ and includes
short message service (SMS) and
multimedia message service (MMS)
messages. The definition explicitly
excludes ‘‘message[s] sent over an IPenabled messaging service to another
user of the same messaging service’’ that
do not otherwise meet the general
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15576
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
definition, as well as ‘‘real-time, twoway voice or video communication.’’
When the Commission interpreted
section 227(e)(8) for purposes of
implementation, it adopted a rule that
mirrors the statutory text. We believe
that language is also appropriate for
purposes of Safe Connections Act
implementation and propose to adopt it.
We seek comment on this proposal.
110. Covered Hotline. The Safe
Connections Act defines the term
‘‘covered hotline’’ to mean ‘‘a hotline
related to domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex
trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in
persons, or any other similar act.’’ We
propose to adopt this definition in our
rules, but believe that we should further
clarify what constitutes a ‘‘hotline’’ and
how much of the counseling services
and information provided on the
‘‘hotline’’ must relate to ‘‘domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, stalking, sex trafficking, severe
forms of trafficking in persons, or any
other similar act[s]’’ for the ‘‘hotline’’ to
be a ‘‘covered hotline.’’
111. As an initial matter, we
tentatively conclude that in providing
these clarifications, we should strive to
meet the broadest reasonable
expectations of a survivor seeking to
place calls and send text messages
without fear that they will appear in
logs. Do commenters agree with this
general approach to the definition of
‘‘covered hotline’’? Are there any
disadvantages to being more rather than
less inclusive in determining what is a
‘‘covered hotline’’? Are there any
entities that we should specifically
exclude from our definition of ‘‘covered
hotlines’’? Are there any factors we need
to consider that could lead us to
conclude that the scope of ‘‘covered
hotlines’’ should be less exhaustive?
112. Turning to the specific
definition, to be a ‘‘covered hotline,’’ the
service associated with the pertinent
telephone number must be a ‘‘hotline,’’
a term not defined in the Safe
Connections Act. Given the Safe
Connections Act’s definition of
‘‘covered hotline,’’ as well as the
potential use of a central database of
‘‘covered hotlines’’ (calls and text
messages to which would be omitted
from logs of calls and texts), we believe
it reasonable to interpret the term
‘‘hotline’’ generally to mean a telephone
number on which counseling and
information pertaining to a particular
topic or topics is provided. We suspect,
however, that certain telephone
numbers may serve as ‘‘hotlines’’ and
also be used for other purposes, such as
the main telephone number for the
organization providing the counseling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
and/or information service. Further, we
tentatively conclude that telephone
numbers should not be excluded from
being ‘‘covered hotlines’’ because they
do not serve exclusively as ‘‘hotlines.’’
Indeed, we believe that we can best
achieve the goal of minimizing hotline
hesitancy by interpreting ‘‘hotline’’ as
broadly as possible, including telephone
numbers on which an organization
provides anything more than a de
minimis amount of information and
counseling and propose to use this
standard as a component in our
definition of ‘‘covered hotline.’’ Do
commenters agree with this approach
that we should not require that a
telephone number serve exclusively as a
‘‘hotline’’? Are there any other
considerations associated with an
expansive definition of ‘‘hotline’’ that
we should consider?
113. We tentatively conclude that a
‘‘covered hotline’’ need not exclusively
provide counseling and information to
service domestic violence survivors
because such a requirement would be
overly restrictive and potentially
exclude some hotlines that are
providing essential services to domestic
violence survivors. Thus, at least
initially, we believe it is best to be as
inclusive as possible and define as a
‘‘covered hotline’’ any hotline that
provides counseling and information on
topics described in the Safe Connections
Act’s definition of ‘‘covered hotline’’ as
more than a de minimis portion of the
hotlines’ operations. Do commenters
agree? Should we instead establish a
percentage of the organization’s services
that need to be related to covered
counseling for the hotline to be a
covered hotline? If so, what percentage?
114. Given the novelty of overseeing
a central database of covered hotlines,
and to maximize the efficiency in
resolving future matters of
interpretation under these provisions of
the Safe Connections Act, we also
propose delegating to the Wireline
Competition Bureau the task of
providing further clarification, as
necessary, of the scope and definition of
‘‘covered hotline.’’ We invite comment
on this proposal.
115. Consumer-Facing Logs of Calls
and Text Messages. The Safe
Connections Act does not define the
term ‘‘consumer-facing logs of calls or
text messages.’’ In light of our goal of
minimizing hotline hesitancy by
preventing abusers from being made
aware of survivors’ calls and text
messages to hotlines, we believe that we
should define the term as broadly as
possible. We propose to define such logs
as any means by which a service
provider presents to a consumer a
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
listing of telephone numbers to which
calls or text messages were directed,
regardless of, for example, the medium
used (such as by paper, online listing,
or electronic file), whether the calls
were completed or the text messages
were successfully delivered, whether
part of a bill or otherwise, and whether
requested by the consumer or otherwise
provided. In addition, our proposed
definition includes oral disclosures
(likely through customer service
representatives) and written disclosures
by service providers of individual call
or text message records. For avoidance
of doubt, we propose to exclude from
this definition any logs of calls or text
messages stored on consumers’ wireless
devices or wireline telephones, such as
recent calls stored in the mobile
device’s phone app or lists of recently
dialed numbers on cordless wireline
handsets. We seek comment on our
proposed definition. Does it provide
sufficient specificity for service
providers to implement our proposed
rules?
3. Creating and Maintaining the Central
Database of Hotlines
116. The Safe Connections Act directs
the Commission to begin a rulemaking
no later than 180 days after its
enactment to consider whether and how
to establish a central database of
hotlines related to domestic violence,
dating violence, stalking, sexual assault,
human trafficking, and other related
crimes that could be updated monthly
and used by a mobile service provider
or a wireline provider of voice service
to omit the records of calls or text
messages to such hotlines from
consumer-facing logs of calls or text
messages. We satisfy this obligation by
seeking comment here on whether and
how to establish such a central database
of covered hotlines. We propose to
establish a central database of covered
hotlines that would be updated
monthly. We believe that a central
database would provide certainty as to
which records are to be suppressed,
thus fulfilling the Safe Connections
Act’s objective to protect survivors
while making clear service providers’
compliance obligations. We seek
comment on this proposal and ask, as a
general matter, whether commenters
agree that we should establish a central
database as part of our efforts to protect
the privacy of calls and text messages to
covered hotlines. Are there any reasons
not to create a central database of
covered hotlines? Are there any current
lists or existing repositories of hotlines
maintained by national organizations
seeking to end domestic violence that
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
could provide the foundation for such a
database?
117. We next explore the issue of who
should administer this database. Should
the Commission? Alternatively, should
a third party serve as the central
database administrator (in which case
all policy decisions would continue to
be made by the Commission)? What are
the advantages and disadvantages of
each option? If we were to use a third
party as the database administrator, how
should it be selected? Are there any
special requirements that the
Commission should seek in a database
administrator? What entities have the
expertise needed to be the administrator
of such a database? Do commenters have
any suggestions for the particular
manner in which the Commission
would oversee the administrator of the
database?
118. We also seek comment on the
scope of the database administrator’s
role and responsibilities. Should the
database administrator be responsible
not only for operating the central
database, but also for initially
populating the central database? We
expect it would be more efficient to
have a single entity populate the
database initially and also take
responsibility for updating the entries in
the database periodically. If the database
administrator will not be responsible for
initially populating the database, how
should the Commission establish and
populate the system? How should the
initial set of covered hotlines be
identified and information about them
collected for the central database?
Would it be necessary to create an
entirely new database or would it be
possible to expand or modify an existing
database? What role should operators of
covered hotlines play in ensuring their
inclusion in the central database, as
well as the accuracy of their
information? Should individual hotline
operators be permitted to list multiple
numbers in the central database? How
should the Commission and the
database administrator work with
hotline operators? Should the database
administrator accept submissions of
hotlines from third parties, presumably
followed by verification with the hotline
operator?
119. What steps should the
Commission and database administrator
take to maximize the
comprehensiveness and accuracy of the
central database both initially and after
it is established? We believe one
significant step would be making certain
fields of the central database public. At
present, we expect the central database
to include the name of the hotline, its
telephone number, a contact name (and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
telephone number), and an address. We
propose to make publicly available the
names of the covered hotlines and their
telephone numbers, as well as any
location information that a covered
hotline may elect to make available,
such as any geographic area in which
they concentrate their efforts, but we
invite commenters to address whether
there are other permissible disclosures
of contact information under the Privacy
Act System of Record Notice (SORN)
governing our use and disclosure of
contact information that should be
restricted given the unique equities
here, to preserve that information as
confidential. We believe that it will
substantially improve the accuracy of
the list because the public, including
interested support organizations, will be
able to inspect it and report any invalid
numbers and/or information listed. This
will have the additional benefit of
allowing for a means by which a
survivor who is hesitant about calling a
covered hotline can check the list to
determine whether the number they
plan to call or text message will indeed
be omitted. Because a hotline needs its
telephone number to be public for the
hotline to be effective, we envision few
potential disadvantages of making the
central database of covered hotlines
public. Do commenters agree that we
should make the central database public
in the manner discussed above? Are
there further advantages? Are there any
significant disadvantages? If we do
make the central database of covered
hotlines public, should we permit
operators of hotlines to include location
information other than street address,
such as city, part of a state, state, etc.,
if they wish to do so? Are there any
other steps that can be taken to
maximize the comprehensiveness and
accuracy of the central database both
initially and after it is established?
120. Once a potential covered hotline
has been identified, what process
should be used for determining whether
a hotline is a covered hotline? Should
we require a self-certification by the
operator of the hotline? Should the
database administrator conduct
additional research? Should we require
operators of hotlines to demonstrate or
at least certify that they meet the
definition of a covered hotline? We
invite commenters to identify such
considerations and also propose
solutions.
121. Central Database Updates. The
Safe Connections Act directs the
Commission to consider whether and
how to ‘‘. . . update on a monthly basis,
[the] central database of covered
hotlines to be used by a covered
provider or a wireline provider of voice
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15577
service.’’ We propose for the central
database to be updated monthly to keep
up with the dynamic nature of support
networks for survivors. Do commenters
agree?
122. With regard to hotlines already
in the central database, we propose that
it be the responsibility of the hotline
operators to notify the database
administrator of any changes to their
information, including the telephone
number for the hotline. Under our
proposal, the database administrator
would also take update submissions
from third parties, subject to verification
with the hotline operator. We further
propose that the database administrator
should conduct an annual outreach
campaign to hotline operators
requesting that they confirm the
accuracy of their current information.
Should part of the updating process
include routine certifications and, if so,
how frequently? Over time, should
organizations be automatically removed
from the central database if they do not
recertify their applications? Do
commenters agree with these proposals
regarding updating information already
contained in the central database?
123. We expect the process of adding
additional hotlines to the central
database to be different from initially
creating the database because, for
example, it may not be practical for the
Commission to issue a formal call for
submissions to the database on a
monthly basis. How should new
candidates for inclusion in the central
database be identified? Should the
database administrator be tasked with
performing routine checks for new
hotlines? Are there feasible means of
doing so? How often should this be
done? We propose that the database
administrator routinely accept
submissions of covered hotline
information both from their operators
and third parties, the latter subject to
whatever verification process we may
establish for the initial creation of the
central database. Do commenters agree
with these proposals? What other steps
could the Commission and the database
administrator take to continue to
monitor for potential additions to the
central database of covered hotlines?
124. Funding of the Central Database.
Section 5(b)(3) of the Safe Connections
Act does not identify an appropriation
to fund the maintenance and operation
of the central database. In light of this,
how should this central database be
funded? Is there a legal basis to use cost
recovery from all telecommunications
and interconnected VoIP service
providers using revenue or some other
indicia, similar to the Universal Service
Fund and funding for the North
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15578
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
American Numbering Plan? What
authority would the Commission rely
upon to use a cost recovery support
mechanism for the central database? If
a cost recovery scheme based on
revenue is considered, what revenue
base should be used? How often should
assessments be made? Who should bill
and collect for such assessments and
what process should we use to select
this entity? If the central database’s
creation and operations are not funded
through an assessment based on service
provider revenue, what alternative do
commenters recommend? Commenters
should address whether any proposed
funding scheme presents Miscellaneous
Receipts Act or Anti-Deficiency Act
concerns? Does the Safe Connections
Act contemplate (and permit) the
Commission to establish rules
pertaining to use of the database, but
defer actual creation of the database
until we can request and receive
specific funding? If so, should we, in
fact, defer actual creation of the
database in such a manner? We seek
comment on how the database should
be funded at initial implementation and
on an ongoing basis given the Safe
Connections Act’s requirement that this
database be updated monthly.
4. Using the Central Database of
Hotlines
125. Under our proposal and
consistent with the Safe Connections
Act, the central database of covered
hotlines will serve as the source of
covered hotlines to which calls and text
messages must be omitted from
consumer-facing logs. We seek comment
on how the required use of the central
database should be operationalized in
our rules.
126. As an initial matter, we propose
that service providers be responsible for
downloading the central database
themselves in light of our proposal to
make it public on a website to be
maintained by the database
administrator. This version of the
central database would include only the
organization name and telephone
number(s) (omitting addresses and
contact information) and would be
available in an easily downloadable and
widely used format, such as a delimited
text file. We tentatively conclude that
the administrative burdens on service
providers under such a system would be
minimal. We seek comment on this
proposal. If commenters disagree with
our proposal to make the central
database publicly available, and, thus,
downloadable by service providers from
a public website, we request proposals
for how we should control access to the
central database.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
127. We seek comment on an
appropriate amount of time following
adoption of rules by which service
providers should be required to comply
with the obligation to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines. Should we factor in potential
unique challenges that certain providers
(such as those using certain
technologies or those of a certain size)
may face when establishing a
compliance date? Should the
compliance deadline vary by the type of
service provider, such as by allowing
smaller providers more time to comply?
If so, how should we determine the
service providers that should be given
more time and how much more time
should be provided? Are there any
disadvantages to providing certain
service providers a later compliance
deadline, such as potentially creating
confusion for survivors in not knowing
when their particular service provider
will begin complying? Are there ways to
mitigate these concerns?
128. Should we establish a minimum
frequency for service providers to
download updates to the central
database? Section 5(b)(3)(D) of the Safe
Connections Act, which provides a safe
harbor defense in court actions if ‘‘a
covered provider updates its own
databases to match the central database
not less frequently than once every 30
days,’’ affect our requirements in this
regard? Should we establish 30 days as
the minimum frequency at which
service providers must download
updates? Would downloaded central
database updates be immediately
implemented in service provider
systems? For example, do service
providers expect to need to test
updates? If so, how should our rules
account for this, considering that
survivors may expect updates to be
implemented relatively quickly? Should
we establish a maximum period of time
between when the administrator makes
an update available and when such an
update is implemented in service
providers’ systems?
129. What measures should we take to
ensure and determine compliance by
service providers with any rules that we
might adopt for protecting the privacy of
calls and text messages to hotlines?
Should we require regular certifications
and, if so, how frequently? Should we
establish specific penalties for failure by
service providers to comply with any
rules protecting the privacy of calls and
text messages to hotlines? If so, what
should they be? Are there any other
aspects of a compliance framework that
we should establish?
130. Are there any potential
inconsistencies between the rules that
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
we might adopt to ensure the privacy of
calls and text messages to hotlines and
other Commission rules or state
regulations? For example, would
omitting toll calls that incur separate
charges from consumers’ bills conflict
with our truth-in-billing rules? Are there
any other potential inconsistencies?
Should we explicitly resolve them and,
if so, how? What role might disclaimers
issued by service providers play?
131. We seek comment on the
Commission’s legal authority to adopt
rules to establish, and update on a
monthly basis, a central database of
covered hotlines and to require covered
providers and wireline providers of
voice service to omit from consumerfacing logs of calls or text messages any
records of calls or text messages to
covered hotlines that appear in such
central database, while maintaining
internal records of those calls and
messages. We tentatively conclude that
Congress directing the Commission to
consider how to adopt rules for these
purposes inherently grants the
Commission the legal authority to adopt
such rules. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Further, we seek
comment on other potential sources of
legal authority for the adoption of such
rules, such as Title I (via ancillary
authority) and section 201(b) of the
Communications Act, perhaps in
conjunction with the Commission’s
purpose under section 1 of the
Communications Act to promote ‘‘safety
of life’’ and Title III (sections 301, 303,
307, 309, or 316).
132. Are there any other issues that
commenters believe we should consider
with regard to section 5(b)(3) of the Safe
Connections Act? We invite commenters
to identify and comment on any other
issues relating to a service provider’s
ability and obligation to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines, the scope of such obligations,
creating and maintaining the central
database of hotlines, and how service
providers should be obligated to use
such central database.
C. Emergency Communications Support
for Survivors
1. The Designated Program for
Emergency Communications Support
133. The Safe Connections Act
requires the Commission to designate
either the Lifeline program or the
Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP)
to provide emergency communications
support to qualifying survivors suffering
from financial hardship, regardless of
whether the survivor might otherwise
meet the designated program’s
eligibility requirements. While
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
‘‘emergency communications support’’
is not defined by the Safe Connections
Act, we construe the Act’s references to
emergency communications support to
be the time-limited support offered to
survivors suffering financial hardship
through the designated program. The
ACP provides funds for an affordable
connectivity benefit consisting of up to
a $30 per month standard discount on
the price of broadband internet access
services that participating providers
supply to eligible households and an
enhanced discount of up to $75 for ACP
households residing on qualifying
Tribal lands. The ACP benefit can be
applied to any internet service offering
of a participating provider, including
bundles containing mobile voice, SMS,
and broadband. The Lifeline program is
one of the Commission’s long-standing
Universal Service Fund programs,
providing a benefit of up to a base $9.25
per month for a discount on the price
of voice and broadband service
provided by eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs).
Households participating in Lifeline
that reside on qualifying Tribal lands
are also eligible to receive an additional
discount of up to $25.
134. We seek comment on which
program, Lifeline or ACP, to designate
to provide emergency communications
support to survivors in accordance with
the Safe Connections Act. The Lifeline
program allows participants to receive
support for broadband service, bundled
service, or voice-only service. As with
Lifeline, ACP offers support for
broadband and broadband service
bundled with voice and/or text
messaging, but it does not offer the
flexibility to apply the benefit to voiceonly service. While the ACP offers a
greater reimbursement amount for
program participants receiving
broadband or bundled service we
understand that offering support for a
voice option is critical for survivors, and
the Safe Connections Act is particularly
focused on the ability of survivors to
establish voice connections
independent from their abusers.
Additionally, the ACP relies on an
appropriated fund in a definite amount,
whereas the Lifeline program is funded
by the Universal Service Fund, which is
a permanent indefinite appropriation.
What are the benefits and limitations of
choosing Lifeline as the designated
program? What are the benefits and
limitations of choosing the ACP as the
designated program? If we decide to
designate the ACP to provide emergency
communications support, how should
we handle the potential wind-down of
the program?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
135. If the Commission selects
Lifeline as the designated program, to
ensure the maximum financial
assistance available to survivors, we
seek comment on whether we have
authority under the Safe Connections
Act to allow qualifying survivors
enrolled in Lifeline through this
pathway provided by the Safe
Connections Act to use that enrollment
in Lifeline to also enroll in ACP. Just as
with the Consolidated Appropriations
Act that established the Emergency
Broadband Benefit Program, the
Infrastructure Act directs that a
household qualifies for ACP if it meets
the qualification for participation in
Lifeline. Under the Commission’s rules,
households that are enrolled in Lifeline
can enroll in ACP without needing to
complete an ACP application. However,
the ACP’s statute ties qualification for
the program to the specific eligibility
criteria of the Lifeline program. If
Lifeline is the designated program for
survivors, should survivors who only
have access to the Lifeline program
through their status under the Safe
Connections Act be permitted to use
their Lifeline participation to also enroll
in the ACP? If we were to modify the
eligibility requirements of the Lifeline
program to allow survivors to enter the
program with a more expansive set of
criteria, would that address any
concerns with the ACP statute’s
requirements and allow survivors to
participate in both programs? If such
survivors were permitted to participate
in the ACP, should their ACP
participation also be limited to the six
months contemplated by the Safe
Connections Act? What modifications to
current ACP enrollment processes for
current Lifeline subscribers should we
consider if we implement this ACP
enrollment pathway?
136. Additionally, we seek comment
on ways that we might be able to
enhance the designated program to best
serve survivors enrolling pursuant to the
Safe Connections Act. For instance, the
Lifeline program currently allows for
base reimbursement of qualifying voiceonly plans up to $5.25 and qualifying
broadband or bundled plans are eligible
to receive up to $9.25 in Lifeline
support. Recognizing the critical role
that voice service plays in the lives of
survivors, would it be appropriate to
allow providers serving qualifying
survivors to provide discounts of, and
claim reimbursement for, up to $9.25,
the full Lifeline reimbursement, even for
voice-only service plans? We note that
section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Safe
Connections Act directs the
Commission to adopt rules that allow a
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15579
survivor who is suffering from financial
hardship and meets the requirements of
section 345(c)(1) to enroll in the
designated program as quickly as
feasible and to ‘‘participate in the
designated program based on such
qualifications for not more than 6
months.’’ We construe the directive to
allow relevant survivors to ‘‘participate’’
in the designated program to mean,
among other things, that those survivors
can receive the full subsidy currently
available under the designated program
for up to six months. We seek comment
on this view. If this were permitted,
how should USAC allow service
providers to make such claims while
ensuring survivors’ privacy? If we select
Lifeline as the designated program, how
might the contribution factor be
impacted by an increase in support for
voice-only service, even for a limited
population, to ensure sufficient support
benefits for survivors through the
Universal Service Fund? We also note
that the Safe Connections Act does not
explicitly discuss survivors’ access to
the designated program’s enhanced
benefit for residents of Tribal lands.
However, the enhanced benefit for
Tribal lands is an established
component of the ‘‘federal Lifeline
support amount’’ and ‘‘affordable
connectivity benefit support amount’’ as
established by the Commission’s rules.
Therefore, we tentatively conclude that
survivors who would otherwise be
eligible for emergency communications
support under the Safe Connections Act
and reside on qualifying Tribal lands
will also be able to receive the
designated program’s enhanced Tribal
benefit. What are the benefits or
drawbacks associated with allowing
survivors to qualify for the Tribal
enhanced benefit?
137. Providers in the Lifeline program
must be designated ETCs by state
regulatory agencies or, where a state
declines this responsibility, by the
Commission. For the ACP, participating
providers are limited to providers of
‘‘broadband internet access service’’.
These requirements are more limiting
than the broader definition of ‘‘covered
providers’’ contemplated by the Safe
Connections Act. While Congress
clearly instructed the Commission to
designate either the Lifeline program or
ACP as the designated program, we seek
comment on the interplay between the
limiting nature of the Lifeline program’s
ETC requirement and the broader
understanding of ‘‘covered providers.’’
We also seek comment on the interplay
between the Safe Connections Act’s
definition of ‘‘covered providers’’ and
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15580
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
the definition of ‘‘provider’’ used in the
ACP.
138. We seek comment on the impact
of the designated program’s benefit as it
pertains to survivors’ access to devices
following completion of a line
separation request. The Lifeline program
does not offer any reimbursement for
devices, unlike the ACP, which offers
reimbursement for qualifying devices,
but such devices are limited to internetconnected laptops, desktops, and
tablets. Does this significantly impact
the Lifeline program’s or ACP’s
effectiveness for survivors? We seek
comment on the impact the one-time
ACP connected device discount may
have for survivors, and in particular,
those who qualify to enroll in the
designated program under the Safe
Connections Act. While the Commission
has not adopted rules that offer device
reimbursement in the Lifeline program,
we seek comment on the ways in which
devices are made available to enrolling
Lifeline subscribers in the marketplace.
Aside from providers, is there a role for
organizations that work with survivors
suffering financial hardship to help
distribute connected devices and mobile
phones to those enrolling in Lifeline as
the designated program through the Safe
Connections Act?
139. We also propose rules the
Commission could adopt to implement
the emergency communications support
provisions of the Safe Connections Act
without prejudice as to whether to
designate either the Lifeline program or
ACP as the program to provide such
support. In this regard, we seek
comment on both the amendments to
Part 54 as they appear at the end of this
document (using the Lifeline program as
an example), as well as how such
amendments could be adapted to the
Commission’s existing ACP rules.
2. Defining Financial Hardship
140. The Safe Connections Act directs
the Commission to allow survivors
suffering from financial hardship to
enroll in the designated program
‘‘without regard to whether the survivor
meets the otherwise applicable
eligibility requirements.’’ We seek
comment on how to interpret this
provision of the Safe Connections Act.
We propose to interpret this provision
to mean that, if a person meets the
criteria of ‘‘suffering from financial
hardship’’ and meets the requirements
of section 345(c)(1), then the person
may enroll in the designated program
even if they do not meet the
qualification requirements for the
designated program, whether Lifeline or
the ACP. While the eligibility
requirements of Lifeline are established
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
in the Commission’s rules, the eligibility
criteria for the ACP are statutory. If we
were to designate the ACP to provide
survivors with emergency
communications support, would we
have to use the ACP’s eligibility
requirements in the definition of
financial hardship, or did Congress
intend that the survivor eligibility
requirements in the Safe Connections
Act supersede the ACP’s statutory
eligibility requirements if the ACP were
the designated program? If Congress did
not intend for the Commission to define
financial hardship more expansively
than the ACP’s statutory eligibility
requirements, then what meaning
should the Commission attribute to
section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Safe
Connections Act?
141. We also seek comment on how
we should interpret and incorporate
section 345(c)(1) of the Communications
Act for purposes of verifying eligibility
for the designated program. The Safe
Connections Act states that a survivor
seeking to participate in the designated
program must ‘‘meet[ ] the requirements
under’’ the newly added ‘‘section
345(c)(1),’’ which details the process for
a survivor completing a line separation
request. As a threshold matter, we
interpret the Safe Connections Act to
limit access to ‘‘emergency
communications support’’ in the
designated program to those survivors
that submit a completed line separation
request. Is this interpretation supported
by the statute? If not, how should we
interpret the language in the Safe
Connections Act referring to survivors
who ‘‘meet the requirements under
section 345(c)(1)’’? While we believe
that the Safe Connections Act limits the
opportunity for support to survivors that
have submitted a line separation
request, can a survivor ‘‘meet the
requirements under section 345(c)(1)’’ if
they can demonstrate that they are a
survivor of a covered act by producing
certain documentation?
142. The Safe Connections Act also
requires that a survivor be ‘‘suffering
from financial hardship’’ to obtain
emergency communications support
from the designated program. For
survivors who leave abusive
environments, experiencing financial
instability is a common occurrence as a
result of increased expenses and
economic dependency on former
partners. Given the common connection
between domestic violence and
financial instability, we seek comment
on whether we should presume that
survivors of domestic violence are
suffering from financial hardship and
therefore accept documentation of
domestic violence as demonstrative of
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
financial hardship. Does the Safe
Connections Act allow us to adopt such
an approach? Would this interpretation
give sufficient meaning to the Safe
Connections Act’s reference to
‘‘financial hardship’’? Alternatively,
does the Safe Connections Act require
us to prescribe demonstration of actual,
rather than presumed, financial
hardship for purposes of participation
in the designated program? Would it be
more appropriate to establish criteria
allowing a survivor to demonstrate that
their abuser had cut them off from prior
financial resources to substantiate
financial hardship? If so, what should
we require to substantiate this claim
when the survivor’s existing financial
documentation may not otherwise
demonstrate financial hardship?
143. In response to our Notice of
Inquiry, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) and other
advocacy groups proposed that the
Commission allow survivors to selfcertify financial hardship. They suggest
that because survivors who leave
abusive situations often lack access to
financial documentation, the
Commission should not require
survivors to submit any incomeverifying documentation. This approach
would reduce the barriers of
participation for survivors and help
survivors access the benefits of the
designated program. We believe that,
under this approach, any waste, fraud,
and abuse concerns could be mitigated
by the requirement that survivors also
demonstrate that they have met the
requirements of section 345(c)(1) and
the six-month limitation on receiving
emergency communications support.
We seek comment on this proposal to
allow survivors to self-certify financial
hardship. What are the benefits and
disadvantages of this approach? If we
adopted this approach, should we
require survivors to submit an affidavit,
as suggested by the NVRDC, as part of
the self-certification of financial
hardship status? Should any such
affidavit or self-certification be
submitted under penalty of perjury?
Would requiring an affidavit be a barrier
preventing survivors from accessing
emergency communications support?
Should we require that any certification
or affidavit be notarized to ensure the
veracity of the identity of the signer, and
what burdens would a notarization
requirement impose on survivors?
Alternatively, would allowing trusted
third parties such as shelters or social
workers to certify the financial hardship
status of survivors allow survivors to
access emergency communication
services while mitigating any risk of
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
waste, fraud, or abuse? In contrast,
would requiring a third-party
certification present a barrier to survivor
participation in the designated
emergency communication support
program, as EPIC argues? If we allowed
for other methods of demonstrating
financial hardship beyond income, what
documentation should we require from
survivors to explain their financial
hardship? How could we standardize
the reviews of such submissions to
ensure that the Commission and USAC
operate consistently? Should we direct
the Wireline Competition Bureau to
work with USAC to develop a
standardized certification form, which
would clearly define financial hardship
to survivors and other entities, for any
self-certification efforts? Does the fact
that the emergency communications
support contemplated by the Safe
Connections Act is temporary reduce
the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse
connected with survivor selfcertification?
144. We also seek comment on
whether we should allow survivors who
are facing temporary financial hardship
to receive emergency communications
support. Some survivors who have
reliable sources of income nevertheless
face financial instability or hardship as
a result of high temporary or short-term
expenses associated with leaving an
abusive relationship. Survivors may
need to pay expensive medical bills,
cover new housing and transportation
costs, and find new childcare
arrangements, all of which can lead to
financial instability. If we allow
survivors to qualify for emergency
communications support who are facing
temporary financial hardship, how
should we define temporary financial
hardship? Would showings of
temporary financial hardship have to be
tied to the survivor’s income at a
particular point in time, or are there
other types of documentation that
survivors could submit to demonstrate
temporary financial hardship? Are there
benefit programs that are available to
survivors experiencing temporary
financial hardship, the participation in
which we should accept as qualifying a
survivor to participate in the designated
program? Does the Safe Connections Act
permit us to establish a process for
survivors who are experiencing
temporary financial hardship to obtain
emergency communications support?
145. Alternatively, we could define
financial hardship to mirror the ACP
eligibility requirements, which are
broader than the Lifeline eligibility
requirements, even if we deem Lifeline
the designated program. This approach
would allow many survivors who
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
participate in qualifying programs to
have their eligibility automatically
confirmed, allowing them to ‘‘enroll in
the designated program as quickly as
feasible’’ as required by the Safe
Connections Act. Moreover, the more
expansive eligibility criteria for the ACP
will provide additional ways for
survivors to demonstrate financial
hardship, and will allow providers and
USAC to leverage existing connections
and documentation requirements to
confirm eligibility. We seek comment on
this approach. What are the benefits
associated with this approach? What are
the burdens or barriers that this
approach might impose on survivors? Is
the income threshold of 200% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines used in the
ACP consistent with the Safe
Connections Act’s goal to allow
survivors to get emergency access to the
designated program? Are there federal
or state benefit programs targeted to
survivors whose eligibility standards we
could use as a model? Are there any
other qualifying benefit programs that
we should consider including as part of
our definition of financial hardship, and
in particular programs targeted at
survivors? Are there other approaches
that we can use to define financial
hardship that are not directly tied to
survivors’ income?
146. Both Lifeline and the ACP
typically require subscribers to
demonstrate their eligibility by
submitting either proof of income or
participation in a qualifying benefit
program. The Lifeline program and the
ACP have similar approaches for
consumers to document their income.
For instance, subscribers can
demonstrate eligibility on the basis of
income by submitting documentation
such as tax returns or pay-stubs. If we
were to keep a similar approach for
survivors entering the designated
program, we seek comment on whether
and what income documentation we
should require survivors to submit to
demonstrate they are experiencing
financial hardship. Given the unique
challenges faced by many survivors in
accessing financial information, should
we require survivors to submit
documents to demonstrate financial
hardship prior to enrollment in the
designated program, within a certain
amount of time after enrollment, or at
all? If we adopted a delayed
documentation approach, should we
permit service providers to claim
reimbursement before documentation is
confirmed? Would a delayed
documentation approach limit service
providers’ willingness to provide
support to survivors if they were unable
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15581
to claim reimbursement until survivor
documentation was approved? If we
require survivors to submit
documentation to demonstrate financial
hardship, what documentation should
we collect? Are there other types of
income verifying documents that we
could allow survivors to submit beyond
tax returns and pay stubs?
3. Program Application and Enrollment
147. The Safe Connections Act also
directs the Commission to allow a
survivor suffering from financial
hardship to ‘‘enroll in the designated
program as quickly as is feasible.’’ We
therefore seek comment on ways in
which we can improve (1) the
application process for survivors
suffering from financial hardship that
have successfully gone through the line
separation process; (2) the application
process for such survivors that were
unable to obtain a line separation
because of some technical infeasibility;
and (3) the application and enrollment
process for survivors generally. We also
seek comment on how to best approach
enrollments for emergency
communications support in the NLAD
opt-out states or through the ACP’s
alternative verification process (AVP).
148. We first seek comment on the
eligibility determination process for
survivors who have successfully
completed the line separation process.
We propose that survivors should be
able to submit documentation of a
successful line separation request to
qualify for the emergency
communications support. Given the
potential for variation across service
providers, we anticipate that USAC may
need to engage in reviews of
information documenting a successful
line separation request. Is there a way in
which the Commission and USAC can
standardize confirmation of line
separation requests such that USAC will
be able to more quickly review such
documentation and confirm that a
subscriber can participate in the
designated program? Should the service
provider be required to provide to
USAC certification or other
documentation confirming the
successful line separation request?
Would confirmation of a line separation
request alone be too ambiguous as lines
can be separated for reasons not
contemplated by the Safe Connections
Act? Might there be ways in which
USAC could confirm that a line
separation request was tied to an
individual’s status as a survivor? If a
survivor had a line separated by a
service provider that also participates in
the designated program, would it be
appropriate to not require line
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15582
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
separation information from the
survivor at the time of application and
instead rely upon the service provider to
maintain that documentation and share
it with USAC as part of any program
integrity or audit inquiries?
149. The Safe Connections Act also
requires the Commission to consider
how it might support survivors suffering
from financial hardship who attempted
to complete a line separation request but
were unable to complete that request
because of some technical infeasibility.
In such situations, should
documentation of that outcome be
sufficient for a survivor to confirm their
status as a survivor and enroll in the
designated program? How can USAC
best assess the veracity of these notices
of technical infeasibility that survivors
receive from service providers? Are
there ways in which the Commission or
USAC can work with service providers
to standardize such notices? If the line
separation request was processed but
confirmed unsuccessful, can it be
presumed that the survivor submitted
all appropriate documentation to the
service provider to confirm their
survivor status, or should USAC require
that documentation and independently
review these materials? Are there ways
in which service providers might share
confirmation of unsuccessful line
separation requests directly with USAC?
After USAC has confirmed that a line
separation request was submitted but
unable to be completed because of a
technical infeasibility, how might the
survivor be able to enter the designated
program? Should the survivor be able to
receive the designated program’s benefit
on their existing account, even if shared
with an abuser? We presume that
survivors should be permitted to apply
the designated program’s benefit on any
new qualifying service not tied to the
abuser, but does that present any unique
challenges for survivors and service
providers?
150. As part of the process for
applying to either Lifeline or the ACP,
consumers are required to submit
information to USAC’s National Verifier
that will allow for confirmation of the
consumer’s identity. By gathering this
information, USAC is better able to
confirm the identity of a consumer and
prevent duplicate enrollments in the
Commission’s affordability programs.
We recognize, however, that providing
this type of identity information could
be difficult for survivors that may be
trying to physically and financially
distance themselves from their abusers.
As such, we seek comment on whether
and how we might gather similar
identity information for the process of
verification while being sensitive to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
privacy and safety needs of survivors.
Would the type of information that
survivors need to provide as part of the
line separation process typically include
all of the information that the
Commission already collects for its
affordability programs? Would this
make providing the same information to
USAC less concerning for survivors
suffering financial hardship,
particularly if such survivors will need
to provide details of their line
separation request? Under the Privacy
Act of 1974, the Federal Information
Security Modernization Act of 2014
(FISMA), and applicable guidance, the
Commission and USAC already have
strong privacy protections in place for
consumer information; are those
measures sufficient for information
collected from survivors? Are there best
practices that governmental
organizations and businesses use for
dealing with survivor information,
which USAC should implement here,
that go above and beyond standard
privacy protections? Are there ways in
which we can modify the information
collected, perhaps by allowing a
consumer to submit their identity
information with an alias name? If we
allow survivors to submit less identity
information as part of their application
to the designated program, how might
we effectively manage program
integrity, administration, and audit
efforts?
151. Current address information can
also be very sensitive information for
survivors to share. If such location
information is disclosed, it may allow
an abuser to locate a survivor, and
because of this concern, survivors may
not be residing at one location or have
a fixed address. They also may be
hesitant to seek emergency
communications support if they believe
their location may be disclosed. To meet
these challenges, we seek comment on
how we might adjust the address
requirements for the designated program
to best support survivors suffering from
financial hardship. Should USAC rely
exclusively on any address information
provided as part of the line separation
documentation it might receive from
survivors suffering financial hardship?
Might such address information be
inaccurate if the account, after the
completion of a line separation request,
is no longer tied to a specific address?
Our Lifeline rules already contemplate
temporary or duplicate addresses for
applicants. Does this approach
sufficiently resolve the potential risks to
survivors suffering from financial
hardship? Would it be appropriate to
require no address if the applicant can
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
confirm their identity through providing
other personal information like their full
actual name or date of birth? Would it
be appropriate to allow the address of a
survivor support organization or other
alias address to stand in as an
applicant’s residential address? Are
these types of methods used in other
areas and for other services where
survivors might seek support?
152. Aside from the issues detailed
above, we also seek comment on how
the Commission and USAC should
modify the designated program’s forms
to allow survivors suffering from
financial hardship to receive support.
As noted, we are interested in learning
more about what information service
providers might have about survivors by
virtue of the line separation process and
whether such information can be
provided to USAC directly from service
providers. We are sensitive to the
possibility that survivors who would
benefit most from participation in the
designated program may be
experiencing sudden and traumatic
hardship, and we seek to make
participation readily accessible without
compromising the integrity of our
programs. Thus, rather than requiring
survivors to complete the designated
program’s full application process and
provide their line separation material,
would it be appropriate to require
survivors to self-certify that they
completed a line separation request,
regardless of the outcome, as part of
their application to participate in the
designated program? If we were to adopt
such a self-certification approach, we
anticipate the need to require more
identity information to confirm identity.
Under this self-certification approach,
we also anticipate needing information
consistent with the Safe Connections
Act to substantiate that the applicant is
a survivor. Would that be appropriate?
If we did not collect such information,
how might the Commission and USAC
confirm that only survivors suffering
from financial hardship are enrolling in
the program? Even if we do not adopt
a self-certification approach for
confirming that the survivor went
through the line separation process,
should we explore a more streamlined
application for such survivors? If so,
what information that is currently
collected might not be appropriate for
this community? Alternatively, are there
questions or information that should be
added to the current program
application forms? Should such
information be placed on a new
supplemental form, similar to the
Lifeline program’s Household
Worksheet? Would it be more
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
appropriate to develop an entirely new
application process for survivors
seeking to enter the designated
program?
153. As part of the Lifeline and ACP
enrollment process, consumers are
required to have their eligibility
confirmed before they can be enrolled
into either program by a service
provider. This is typically done by the
consumer either interacting directly
with the National Verifier or by working
through a service provider system that
confirms information through an
application programming interface (API)
connection to the National Verifier.
After a consumer’s qualification has
been confirmed, including confirmation
that the consumer is not already
receiving the Lifeline or ACP benefit,
then a service provider can enroll the
consumer in NLAD and begin providing
discounted service to that consumer. We
do not intend to change this general
process for survivors suffering financial
hardship and seeking to participate in
the designated program. However, we
do seek comment on ways in which
USAC can communicate to survivors
and service providers that a survivor has
been qualified to participate in the
designated program. Should USAC
provide survivors with anything
different from what is currently
provided to confirm qualification?
Would it be preferable for USAC to
provide a qualification number that will
confirm a survivor’s ability to
participate in the designated program
while also allowing them to minimize
the amount of personal information they
need to provide to their service
provider? This approach might result in
a qualification number that would allow
the service provider to enroll the
subscriber in NLAD without seeing the
level of personal information that
service providers currently see in
NLAD. Would such an approach be too
administratively burdensome for service
providers to monitor and ensure
compliance with the designated
program’s rules? How else might USAC
work to categorize survivors in NLAD
such that service providers will be
aware that a particular subscriber might
not be able to participate in the program
longer than six months? Is such a
categorization necessary?
154. As stated above, we seek
comment on whether the Lifeline
program or ACP should be the
designated program for impacted
survivors, and we further propose that
survivors seeking to enroll in the
designated program under the Safe
Connection Act be qualified and
enrolled using USAC’s application and
eligibility confirmation process
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
throughout the country. In California,
Texas, and Oregon, the state
administrators currently confirm
Lifeline eligibility and take measures to
prevent duplicate enrollments. As such,
consumers in these states apply through
the state program administrators for
state and federal Lifeline benefits. USAC
partners with these states to ensure that
their processes are in accordance with
the federal Lifeline program’s
guidelines. Here, however, we propose
that survivors in these states apply to
participate in Lifeline as the designated
program, through USAC’s systems
directly. USAC would confirm the
eligibility of survivors to participate in
the program and would work to address
any potential duplicates. This would be
similar to how broadband-only Lifeline
subscribers apply and enroll in
California, where the National Verifier
stands in for the state administrator. By
requiring USAC to review such
enrollments we will ensure a
standardized process for survivor
documentation, greater flexibility to be
responsive to survivor needs, a
centralized repository for any potential
line separation materials that might
come from service providers, and a
unified process around potential
customer transition efforts after the end
of the six-month period. In proposing to
adopt this approach, we would still
permit those with system access to
support survivors in the application
process through access to USAC’s
systems. Should we also permit such
access to be expanded to communitybased organizations that work with
survivors? If we did expand access to
USAC’s systems beyond what is
currently permitted, should that access
be limited in any particular ways to
protect the personal information of
survivors and other program
participants? We seek comment on these
proposals.
155. If the Commission were to
choose the ACP as the designated
program, we propose that all survivor
eligibility determinations should be
completed through the National
Verifier. As discussed above with
Lifeline, we believe that this approach
will improve the process for survivors.
As such, we propose that providers with
approved AVPs would be obligated to
accept determinations from the National
Verifier. This would be limited to
survivors seeking to enter the ACP as
the designated program and would not
impact the general processes in place for
AVP enrollment beyond that group. We
seek comment on this proposal.
156. General Program Requirements.
The Lifeline program and the ACP both
have general requirements to which
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15583
program participants and service
providers must adhere throughout their
participation in the programs. For
instance, both programs are limited to
one benefit per household and both
programs also allow a provider to claim
reimbursement only for subscribers who
actually use their service. We propose
that the general rules and requirements
of the designated program will remain
in effect for survivors and service
providers except to the extent that they
are in conflict with the statutory and
regulatory requirements established
specifically for the emergency
communications support. This would
include such requirements as the
programs’ non-usage de-enrollment
requirements, record retention
requirements, and audit requirements.
We note that we do not expect annual
recertification to be an issue because
survivors must qualify through the
regular program processes to participate
in the designated program beyond their
initial six-month period. Our proposal
reflects our understanding that the
programs’ rules were established to
ensure that the limited resources of each
program go towards individuals that
genuinely need the service and will use
the service, and that a number of these
rules, such as those that deal with
enrollment representatives and the
payment of commissions, were adopted
to address specific program integrity
concerns that we think will continue to
be relevant in the context of our efforts
to offer emergency communications
support. As such, we do not believe it
would be appropriate to modify these
types of requirements. However, we
seek comment on this proposal and are
particularly interested in whether
survivors would be significantly and
negatively impacted by the continuation
of certain generally applicable
programmatic rules in our affordability
programs.
157. While we propose to maintain
the programs’ rules largely in place, we
seek comment on how the programs’
limit of one benefit per household
would interact with a definition of
survivors that may implicate
individuals living in different
households. If we adopt an expansive
definition to permit individuals to be
caregivers to those not in their own
household, should we permit multiple
enrollments, including an enrollment
for the caregiver’s household and an
enrollment for the household of the
individual against whom a covered act
was committed? What administrative
challenges would exist with such an
approach? How might the Commission
and USAC secure proof of the
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15584
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
relationship between individuals and
protect the designated program from
waste, fraud, and abuse?
4. Additional Program Concerns
158. Survivor Transition and
Outreach. The Safe Connections Act
allows qualifying survivors to
participate in the designated program
only for six months. We propose to
interpret this provision as allowing a
survivor’s service provider to receive six
monthly disbursements of support from
the designated program. Is this
interpretation consistent with the Safe
Connections Act? Are there other ways
in which we can measure months when
a consumer might be enrolling in the
middle of a month? If a survivor uses
the program for six months and then
needs to use the program again several
years later, could the designated
program provide an additional period of
support, or does the Safe Connections
Act only permit six months of support
over the lifetime of the survivor? We
propose that such repeated periods of
support would be permissible. To that
end, should we require a certain period
of time between periods of support
before a survivor that meets the
requirements of the Safe Connections
Act would be able to re-enter the
designated program and receive
emergency communications support? If
so, we seek comment on the appropriate
length of time before a survivor could
re-enroll into the designated program
based on the Safe Connections Act. In
such situations, we presume that a
survivor could not rely on their original
line separation request and must
undergo a new line separation process.
Would such a presumption be too
limiting? Would allowing survivors to
rely on their original line separation
request circumvent the Safe
Connections Act’s six month
participation limitation?
159. We also anticipate that there may
be situations where a survivor suffering
financial hardship seeks to receive
service from more than one service
provider over the six-month time period
or may seek to receive support
sporadically, such that the impacted
survivor may not have a single sixmonth time period of participation. We
believe that either approach is permitted
by the Safe Connections Act and seek
comment on our understanding of our
legal authority to permit such
fluctuations in how a survivor might
interact with their service. Should we
place any limitations on survivors
seeking to change their service provider
during a single six-month enrollment
period? How might such an approach
operate if the designated program is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
Lifeline program? Would the approach
differ if the designated program is the
ACP? In situations of sporadic
enrollments over time, what new
material, if any, should we require from
survivors to re-enter the designated
program? Would their original
application be sufficient or should
survivors be required to submit new
applications? Would survivors be
obligated to pursue new line separation
requests, even when they have not fully
utilized six months of emergency
communications support? We also
propose that USAC should be
responsible for monitoring participation
in the program to ensure compliance
with the Safe Connections Act’s time
requirement. Through the NLAD, USAC
can monitor changes in service
providers and calculate a survivor’s
length of participation in the program.
We seek comment on this proposal.
Would USAC need to collect any
additional information, either from
service providers or participating
survivors, to complete this work?
160. We also believe that USAC is
best positioned to handle transition
efforts after the survivor has completed
their six months in the designated
program. Survivors are able to
participate in the Commission’s
affordability programs indefinitely if
they can satisfy the programs’ eligibility
requirements, and the Safe Connections
Act specifically endorses survivors
transitioning to the program beyond six
months if they meet the designated
program’s eligibility requirements. We
anticipate that USAC will have the
appropriate contact information for
survivors participating in the designated
program, and we propose that USAC
directly send outreach material to such
survivors explaining how they can meet
the eligibility requirements of the
Lifeline program and the ACP and
receive discounted service beyond their
original six-month emergency period.
However, if we implement protections
for survivors allowing them to submit
alias addresses or names as part of the
application process, how might that
impact any transition efforts? We
propose that USAC send this material to
participating survivors 60 days before
the end of emergency communications
support, and that such outreach should
include information about participating
service providers in the survivor’s area.
Participating survivors should be free to
change their service provider at this
time if they choose. Should the service
provider also be allowed to
communicate with the survivor about
their potentially ending benefits? What
are the best methods for a provider to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
contact a survivor? Through SMS-text
messages, voice calls, or app-based chat
with the participant? At the end of 60
days, if the survivor has not successfully
confirmed their eligibility to participate
in the designated program beyond six
months, we propose that USAC should
de-enroll the survivor from the program
within five business days of informing
the service provider that the subscriber
is no longer eligible to receive
emergency communications support.
We seek comment on this proposal and
any potential challenges that it might
pose for survivors suffering from
financial hardship or service providers.
161. We also seek comment on how
the support might operate if we permit
survivors suffering from temporary
financial hardship to enter the
designated program. If a survivor asserts
temporary financial hardship and that
financial hardship is resolved within six
months, would the Safe Connections
Act require the survivor to be removed
from the designated program? How
might we work to implement such an
approach? Should we require survivors
to notify USAC of any resolution of their
financial hardship? Are there other
methods by which USAC might be able
to learn of this change in circumstances?
Would a requirement for early removal
once a financial hardship has been
resolved be too administratively
burdensome for survivors and other
stakeholders?
162. Privacy Concerns. As discussed
in the Notice of Inquiry and throughout
this NPRM, consumer privacy
protections are always important to the
Commission and USAC. However, we
recognize that these concerns are
heightened for survivors. The Safe
Connections Act directs the
Commission to consider the
confidentiality of survivor information.
To this end, we note that the systems
that USAC uses to manage the Lifeline
program and the ACP collect only data
elements that have been prescribed by
the Commission to allow for the
effective management of the programs
and their protection against potential
waste, fraud, and abuse.
163. We seek comment, however, on
any other steps the Commission and
USAC can take to ensure survivors’
safety, while continuing to preserve
program integrity and customer service.
Should the Commission and USAC
consider different approaches for
subscriber data in NLAD and the
National Verifier than those already
implemented? For instance, would it be
appropriate to mask certain subscriber
data in USAC’s systems from service
providers? With such an approach, what
information would service providers
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
need to know to provide the discounted
service and claim subscribers for
reimbursement? We also note that
USAC manages a call center for the
affordability programs to support
program participants’ enrollment,
recertification, and service needs. What
processes could USAC put in place to
avoid the unintentional release of data
to an individual who is not a survivor
but who may know some or all of the
survivor’s personally identifiable
information? We suspect that abusers
may try to exploit a call center to learn
where a survivor might reside. We seek
comment on the frequency of this type
of behavior, and whether there are best
practices to prevent such data leakage.
How can USAC and the Commission
best inform survivors about potential
opportunities for lawful disclosure of
information, such as disclosures that
may be necessary in response to
litigation?
164. Our focus has been on the
privacy concerns of survivors, but we
also seek comment on any privacy
concerns that might arise for the
Commission when it comes to personal
information associated with alleged
abusers. As we may be relying upon
only allegations of abuse what might the
Commission do to protect the personal
information, and ensure the safety, of
alleged abusers that may be disclosed in
connection with a survivor seeking
emergency communications support?
What concerns are unique to alleged
abusers that may not already be
addressed by our general privacy
requirements? Are there specific pieces
of information more likely to
inadvertently identify an abuser than
others?
165. Finally, we note that USAC
regularly reports programmatic data
about both the Lifeline program and the
ACP, often including aggregate
subscriber data that is sometimes broken
down at the county, state, and ZIP code
levels. What considerations should the
Commission and USAC make when
making similar subscriber enrollment
information available? Should the
Commission filter out survivor
enrollments from such aggregate
reports? What are the benefits and risks
of reporting the total number of
survivors enrolled in the programs?
166. Program Evaluation. The Safe
Connections Act requires the
Commission to complete an evaluation
of the designated program two years
after the completion of this rulemaking.
The evaluation is specifically meant to
examine the effectiveness of the support
offered to survivors suffering from
financial hardship and to assess the
detection and elimination of waste,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
fraud, and abuse with respect to the
support offered. We seek comment on
ways in which the Commission can
satisfy this requirement. What resources
can the Commission rely upon to solicit
comprehensive program performance
data? Are there ways in which we can
assess the impacts of the designated
program’s efforts on survivors more
broadly? Would surveying program
participants be a viable option for
gaining data or might we expect
minimal response rates given survivors’
privacy concerns? Would shelters and
other support programs be appropriate
survey recipients, and would they have
responsive information to help the
Commission understand the program’s
effectiveness? Are there questions that
we might be able to pose to survivors at
enrollment or during any potential
transition periods that might inform our
understanding of the program’s
effectiveness? Regarding an assessment
of our efforts to combat waste, fraud,
and abuse, are there specific pieces of
data that would be helpful to receive
from service providers unique to this
population? Alternatively, would
USAC’s regular program integrity and
auditing efforts yield enough
information to develop an
understanding of our ability to protect
program funding?
D. Savings Clause
167. Section 7 of the Safe Connections
Act is a savings clause providing that
nothing in the Safe Connections Act
abrogates, limits, or otherwise affects
the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA), our
regulations implementing the statute, or
any amendments to either the statute or
our implementing regulations. Despite
the provision appearing to be selfeffectuating, should we nevertheless
incorporate this savings clause into the
rules that we adopt in this proceeding?
Are there any changes that we should
make to our proposed rules to account
for operation of the clause that we do
not discuss above? For example, would
the line separation process affect service
providers’ ability to comply with
CALEA requests pertaining to any
devices and telephone numbers
associated with line separations?
E. Promoting Digital Equity and
Inclusion
168. The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to advance digital
equity for all, including people of color,
persons with disabilities, persons who
live in rural or Tribal areas, and others
who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15585
inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and
benefits (if any) that may be associated
with the proposals and issues discussed
herein. Specifically, we seek comment
on how our proposals may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the
scope of the Commission’s relevant legal
authority.
II. Procedural Matters
169. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), requires that an agency
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for notice and comment rulemakings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.’’
Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning
the possible impact of the rule and
policy changes contained in this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is
set forth below.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
170. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small
entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission
requests written public comments on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines for comments
provided on the first page of the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In
addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
171. In the NPRM, the Commission
begins the process of implementing the
Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe
Connections Act), enacted on December
7, 2022. The legislation amends the
Communications Act of 1934
(Communications Act) to require mobile
service providers to separate the line of
a survivor of domestic violence (and
other related crimes and abuse), and any
individuals in the care of the survivor,
from a mobile service contract shared
with an abuser within two business
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15586
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
days after receiving a request from the
survivor. The Safe Connections Act also
directs the Commission to issue rules,
within 18 months of the statute’s
enactment, implementing the line
separation requirement. The Safe
Connections Act also requires the
Commission to designate either the
Lifeline program or the Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) as the
vehicle for providing survivors suffering
financial hardship with emergency
communications support for up to six
months. Further, the legislation requires
the Commission to open a rulemaking
within 180 days of enactment to
consider whether to, and how the
Commission should, establish a central
database of domestic abuse hotlines to
be used by service providers and require
such providers to omit, subject to
certain conditions, any records of calls
or text messages to the hotlines from
consumer-facing call and text message
logs. The Notice proposes rules as
directed by these three statutory
requirements. We believe that these
measures will aid survivors who lack
meaningful support and
communications options when
establishing independence from an
abuser.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Legal Basis
172. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to this NPRM is
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254,
345, and 403 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 154(j), 254, 345, and 403, section
5(b) of the Safe Connections Act of
2022, Public Law 117–223, 136 Stat.
2280, and section 904 of Division N,
Title IX of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law
116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, Public Law 117–58, 135 Stat. 429.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
173. 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. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
174. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time,
may affect small entities that are not
easily categorized at present. We
therefore describe, at the outset, three
broad groups of small entities that could
be directly affected herein. First, while
there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are
used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
Office of Advocacy, in general a small
business is an independent business
having fewer than 500 employees. These
types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 32.5 million
businesses.
175. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of
$50,000 or less to delineate its annual
electronic filing requirements for small
exempt organizations. Nationwide, for
tax year 2020, there were approximately
447,689 small exempt organizations in
the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000
or less according to the registration and
tax data for exempt organizations
available from the IRS.
176. Finally, the small entity
described as a ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as
‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of
Governments indicate there were 90,075
local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general
purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,040 special purpose governments—
independent school districts with
enrollment populations of less than
50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017
U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall
into the category of ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’
177. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired communications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this
industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities
that they operate to provide a variety of
services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming
distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception,
establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using
facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are
also referred to as wireline carriers or
fixed local service providers.
178. The SBA small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or
fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 5,183 providers that
reported they were engaged in the
provision of fixed local services. Of
these providers, the Commission
estimates that 4,737 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA’s small
business size standard, most of these
providers can be considered small
entities.
179. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to
local exchange services. Providers of
these services include both incumbent
and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are
also referred to as wireline carriers or
fixed local service providers. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees
as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 3,054 firms
that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms
operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 5,183
providers that reported they were fixed
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission
estimates that 4,737 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA’s small
business size standard, most of these
providers can be considered small
entities.
180. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission
nor the SBA has developed a size
standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to local exchange
services. Providers of these services
include several types of competitive
local exchange service providers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees
as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 3,054 firms
that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms
operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 3,956
providers that reported they were
competitive local exchange service
providers. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 3,808
providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the
SBA’s small business size standard,
most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
181. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).
Neither the Commission nor the SBA
have developed a small business size
standard specifically for Interexchange
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The
SBA small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2017 show that there were 3,054
firms that operated in this industry for
the entire year. Of this number, 2,964
firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 151
providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of
interexchange services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the
SBA’s small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of providers in this industry can be
considered small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
182. Cable System Operators
(Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, contains a size standard for a
‘‘small cable operator,’’ which is ‘‘a
cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer
than one percent of all subscribers in
the United States and is not affiliated
with any entity or entities whose gross
annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.’’ For purposes of the
Telecom Act Standard, the Commission
determined that a cable system operator
that serves fewer than 677,000
subscribers, either directly or through
affiliates, will meet the definition of a
small cable operator based on the cable
subscriber count established in a 2001
public notice. Based on industry data,
only six cable system operators have
more than 677,000 subscribers.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that the majority of cable system
operators are small under this size
standard. We note however, that the
Commission neither requests nor
collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with
entities whose gross annual revenues
exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are
unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of cable
system operators that would qualify as
small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.
183. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a definition for small businesses
specifically applicable to Other Toll
Carriers. This category includes toll
carriers that do not fall within the
categories of interexchange carriers,
operator service providers, prepaid
calling card providers, satellite service
carriers, or toll resellers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees
as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2017 show that there were 3,054 firms
in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms
operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 115
providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of other toll
services. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 113
providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the
SBA’s small business size standard,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15587
most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
184. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
services, paging services, wireless
internet access, and wireless video
services. The SBA size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer
than 250 employees. Additionally,
based on Commission data in the 2021
Universal Service Monitoring Report, as
of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the
SBA’s small business size standard,
most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
185. Satellite Telecommunications.
This industry comprises firms
‘‘primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ Satellite
telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station
operators. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a
business with $38.5 million or less in
annual receipts as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that 275
firms in this industry operated for the
entire year. Of this number, 242 firms
had revenue of less than $25 million.
Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 71 providers that
reported they were engaged in the
provision of satellite
telecommunications services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that approximately 48 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA’s small
business size standard, a little more
than half of these providers can be
considered small entities.
186. Wireless Broadband internet
Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15588
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
or WISPs). Providers of wireless
broadband internet access service
include fixed and mobile wireless
providers. The Commission defines a
WISP as ‘‘[a] company that provides
end-users with wireless access to the
internet[.]’’ Wireless service that
terminates at an end user location or
mobile device and enables the end user
to receive information from and/or send
information to the internet at
information transfer rates exceeding 200
kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one
direction is classified as a broadband
connection under the Commission’s
rules. Neither the SBA nor the
Commission have developed a size
standard specifically applicable to
Wireless Broadband internet Access
Service Providers. The closest
applicable industry with an SBA small
business size standard is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). The SBA size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer
than 250 employees.
187. Additionally, according to
Commission data on internet access
services as of December 31, 2018,
nationwide there were approximately
1,209 fixed wireless and 71 mobile
wireless providers of connections over
200 kbps in at least one direction. The
Commission does not collect data on the
number of employees for providers of
these services, therefore, at this time we
are not able to estimate the number of
providers that would qualify as small
under the SBA’s small business size
standard. However, based on data in the
Commission’s 2022 Communications
Marketplace Report on the small
number of large mobile wireless
nationwide and regional facilities-based
providers, the dozens of small regional
facilities-based providers and the
number of wireless mobile virtual
network providers in general, as well as
on terrestrial fixed wireless broadband
providers in general, we believe that the
majority of wireless internet access
service providers can be considered
small entities.
188. Local Resellers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size
standard specifically for Local Resellers.
Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity
from owners and operators of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. The SBA small business size
standard for Telecommunications
Resellers classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided
resale services for the entire year. Of
that number, 1,375 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 293 providers that
reported they were engaged in the
provision of local resale services. Of
these providers, the Commission
estimates that 289 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently,
using the SBA’s small business size
standard, most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
189. Toll Resellers. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size
standard specifically for Toll Resellers.
Telecommunications Resellers is the
closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The
Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in
purchasing access and network capacity
from owners and operators of
telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
telecommunications services (except
satellite) to businesses and households.
Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not
operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network
operators (MVNOs) are included in this
industry. The SBA small business size
standard for Telecommunications
Resellers classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided
resale services for the entire year. Of
that number, 1,375 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 518 providers that
reported they were engaged in the
provision of toll services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates
that 495 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
SBA’s small business size standard,
most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
190. All Other Telecommunications.
This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Providers of internet
services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over
internet protocol (VoIP) services, via
client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies
firms with annual receipts of $35
million or less as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 1,079 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of those
firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than
$25 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’
firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
191. The NPRM seeks comment on
proposed rules that would help
survivors separate service lines from
accounts that include their abusers,
protect the privacy of calls made by
survivors to domestic abuse hotlines,
and support survivors that pursue a line
separation request and face financial
hardship through the Commission’s
affordability programs. The proposed
actions could potentially result in
additional equipment costs, new or
modified recordkeeping, reporting, or
other compliance requirements for
covered providers such as facilitiesbased Mobile Network Operators, as
well as resellers/Mobile Virtual Network
Operators. Among other things, the
proposed actions would require covered
providers, within two business days of
receiving a completed request from a
survivor, to (1) separate the line of the
survivor, and the line of any individual
in the care of the survivor, from a shared
mobile service contract, or (2) separate
the line of the abuser from a shared
mobile service contract. The NPRM
seeks comment as to the potential
impact to small entities of the proposed
timeframe. Entities, especially small
businesses, are encouraged to quantify
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the costs and benefits of any reporting,
recordkeeping, or compliance
requirement that may be established in
this proceeding.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
192. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives 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 and reporting requirements
under the rules for such 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 such small entities.
193. The NPRM seeks comment on the
particular impacts that the proposed
rules may have on small entities.
Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment
throughout on the burdens of the
proposed rules, and any alternatives, on
covered providers, including small
providers. The NPRM also seeks
comment on an appropriate timeframe
for covered providers to implement the
necessary technical and programmatic
changes to comply with the
requirements under section 345 and our
proposed rules, as well as whether there
are challenges unique to small covered
providers that may require a longer
implementation period than larger
covered providers. Additionally, the
NPRM seeks comment on the ways in
which program changes to either the
Lifeline program or the ACP might
impact both consumers and service
providers participating in either
program. Service providers participating
in these programs may include small
providers. Further, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether small service
providers should either be exempted or
provided additional time to implement
the proposed obligation to omit from
consumer-facing logs of calls and text
messages calls to and text messages
delivered to a central database of
domestic abuse hotlines that the
Commission proposed to establish.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
194. None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
IV. Ordering Clauses
195. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to the authority contained in
sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
254, 345, and 403, section 5(b) of the
Safe Connections Act of 2022, Public
Law 117–223, 136 Stat. 2280, and
section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,
Public Law 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, as
amended by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law
117–58, 135 Stat. 429, that this Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
196. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subject
47 CFR Part 54
Internet telecommunications,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 64
Communications, Communications
common carriers, Communications
equipment, Individuals with
disabilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures, Telecommunications,
Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 54 and 64 as follows:
PART 54—UNIVERSAL SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 54 is
revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201,
205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403,
1004, 1302, 1601–1609, and 1752, unless
otherwise noted; Public Law 117–223, sec. 5,
136 Stat 2280, 2285–88.
2. Amend § 54.400 by adding
paragraphs (q) through (s) to read as
follows:
■
§ 54.400
Terms and definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(q) Survivor. ‘‘Survivor’’ shall have
the definition as applied in 47 CFR
64.6400(q).
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15589
(r) Emergency Communications
Support. ‘‘Emergency communications
support’’ means support received
through the Lifeline program by
qualifying survivors pursuant to the
Safe Connections Act of 2022, Public
Law 117–223.
(s) Financial Hardship. ‘‘Financial
hardship’’ means that a consumer has
met the requirements of § 54.1800(j)(1)
through (6) of subpart R of this part.
■ 3. Amend § 54.405 by adding
paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
§ 54.405
Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(6) De-enrollment from emergency
communications support.
Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this
section, upon determination by the
Administrator that a subscriber
receiving emergency communications
support has exhausted the subscriber’s
six months of support and has not been
able to qualify to participate in the
Lifeline program as defined by § 54.401
of this subpart, the Administrator must
de-enroll the subscriber from
participation in that Lifeline program
within five business days. An eligible
telecommunications carrier shall not be
eligible for Lifeline reimbursement for
any de-enrolled subscriber following the
date of that subscriber’s de-enrollment.
■ 4. Add § 54.424 to subpart E to read
as follows:
§ 54.424 Emergency Communications
Support for Survivors.
(a) Confirmation of subscriber
eligibility. All eligible
telecommunications carriers must
implement policies and procedures for
ensuring that subscribers receiving
emergency communications support
from the Lifeline program are eligible to
receive such support. An eligible
telecommunications carrier must not
seek reimbursement for providing
Lifeline service to a subscriber, based on
that subscriber’s eligibility to receive
emergency communications support,
unless the carrier has received from the
National Verifier:
(1) Notice that the prospective
subscriber has submitted a line
separation request as set forth in 47 CFR
64.6401;
(2) Notice that the prospective
subscriber has demonstrated or selfcertified to their financial hardship
status as defined in § 54.400(s); and
(3) A copy of the subscriber’s
certification that complies with the
requirements set forth in § 54.410(d).
(4) An eligible telecommunications
carrier must securely retain all
information and documentation
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
15590
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
provided by the National Verifier
consistent with § 54.417.
(b) Emergency communications
support amount. Emergency
communications support in the amount
of up to $9.25 per month will be made
available, from the Lifeline program, to
eligible telecommunications carriers
providing service to qualifying
survivors. An eligible
telecommunications carrier must certify
to the Administrator that it will pass
through the full amount of support to
the qualifying survivor and that it has
received any non-federal regulatory
approvals necessary to implement the
rate reduction.
(1) This base reimbursement can be
applied to survivors receiving service
that meets either the minimum service
standard for voice service or broadband
internet access service, as determined in
accordance with § 54.408.
(2) Additional federal Lifeline support
of up to $25 per month will be made
available to an eligible
telecommunications carrier providing
emergency communications support to
an eligible survivor resident of Tribal
lands, as defined in § 54.400(e), to the
extent that the eligible
telecommunications carrier certifies to
the Administrator that it will pass
through the full Tribal lands support
amount to the qualifying eligible
resident of Tribal lands and that it has
received any non-federal regulatory
approvals necessary to implement the
required rate reduction.
(c) Emergency communications
support duration. Qualified survivors
shall be eligible to receive emergency
communications support for a total of
no more than six months. This
limitation applies across all eligible
telecommunications carriers, and the
Administrator will inform eligible
telecommunications carriers when
participating survivors have reached
their limit in emergency
communications support. Survivors that
have reached their emergency
communications support limit may still
participate in the Commission’s
affordability programs if they can satisfy
the eligibility requirements of the
program.
(d) Lifeline rules applicable. Other
Lifeline rules in this subpart not
contradicted by provisions of this
section shall remain in force to manage
the participation of survivors receiving
emergency communications support.
PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES
RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
5. The authority citation for part 64 is
revised to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201,
202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b,
228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276,
345, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401–
1473, unless otherwise noted; Public Law
115–141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091;
Pub. L. 117–223, sec. 5, 136 Stat 2280, 2285–
88.
6. Add subpart II, consisting of
§§ 64.6400 through 64.6404, to read as
follows:
■
Subpart II—Communications Service
Protections for Victims of Domestic
and Other Violence
§ 64.6400
Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a) Abuser. The term ‘‘abuser’’ means
an individual who has committed or
allegedly committed a covered act, as
defined in this subpart, against (1) an
individual who seeks relief under this
subpart; or (2) an individual in the care
of an individual who seeks relief under
this subpart.
(b) Call. The term ‘‘call’’ means a
voice service transmission, regardless of
whether such transmission is
completed.
(c) Consumer-Facing Logs of Calls and
Text Messages. The term ‘‘consumerfacing logs of calls and text messages’’
means any means by which a covered
service provider or wireline provider of
voice service presents a listing of
telephone numbers to which calls or
text messages were directed, regardless
of, for example, the medium used (such
as by paper, online listing, or electronic
file), whether the call was completed or
the text message was delivered, whether
part of a bill or otherwise, and whether
requested by the consumer or otherwise
provided. The term includes oral and
written disclosures by covered service
providers and wireline providers of
voice service of individual call and text
message records.
(d) Covered Act. ‘‘Covered act’’ means
conduct that constitutes (1) a crime
described in section 40002(a) of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(34 U.S.C. 12291(a)), including, but not
limited to, domestic violence, data
violence, sexual assault, stalking, and
sex trafficking; (2) an act or practice
described in paragraph (11) or (12) of
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)
(relating to severe forms of trafficking in
persons and sex trafficking,
respectively); or (3) an act under State
law, Tribal law, or the Uniform Code of
Military Justice that is similar to an
offense described in clause (1) or (2) of
this paragraph. A criminal conviction or
any other determination of a court shall
not be required for conduct described in
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
this paragraph to constitute a covered
act.
(e) Covered hotline. The term
‘‘covered hotline’’ means a hotline
related to domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex
trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in
persons, or any other similar act. Such
term includes any telephone number on
which more than a de minimis amount
of counseling and/or information is
provided on domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex
trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in
persons, or any other similar acts.
(f) Covered provider. ‘‘Covered
provider’’ means a provider of a private
mobile service or commercial mobile
service, as those terms are defined in 47
U.S.C. 332(d).
(g) Designated Program. ‘‘Designated
program’’ refers to the program
designated by the Commission at 47
CFR 54.424 to provide emergency
communications support to survivors.
(h) Primary account holder. ‘‘Primary
account holder’’ means an individual
who is a party to a mobile service
contract with a covered provider.
(i) Shared mobile service contract.
‘‘Shared mobile service contract’’ means
a mobile service contract for an account
that includes not less than two lines of
service, and does not include enterprise
services offered by a covered provider.
(j) Survivor. ‘‘Survivor’’ means an
individual who is not less than 18 years
old and (1) against whom a covered act
has been committed or allegedly
committed; or (2) who cares for another
individual against whom a covered act
has been committed or allegedly
committed (provided that the individual
providing care did not commit or
allegedly commit the covered act).
(k) Text message. The term ‘‘text
message’’ has the meaning given such
term in section 227(e)(8) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)).
(l) Voice service. The term ‘‘voice
service’’ has the meaning given such
term in section 4(a) of the PalloneThune Telephone Robocall Abuse
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence
Act (47 U.S.C. 227b(a)).
§ 64.6401
Requests for Line Separations.
(a) A survivor seeking to separate a
line from a shared mobile service
contract pursuant to this subpart shall
submit to the covered provider a line
separation request requesting relief
under section 345 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and this subpart that
identifies each line that should be
separated. In the case of a survivor
seeking separation of the survivor’s line
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(and/or the lines of individuals in the
care of the survivor), the line separation
request also must (1) state that the
survivor is the user of that specific line,
and (2) include an affidavit setting forth
that an individual in the care of the
survivor is the user of that specific line
and that the individual is in the care of
the survivor.
(b) A survivor seeking to separate a
line or lines from a shared mobile
service contract pursuant to this subpart
must verify that an individual who uses
a line under the shared mobile service
contract has committed or allegedly
committed a covered act against the
survivor or an individual in the
survivor’s care by providing:
(1) A copy of a signed affidavit from
a licensed medical or mental health care
provider, licensed military medical or
mental health care provider, licensed
social worker, victim services provider,
or licensed military victim services
provider, or an employee of a court,
acting within the scope of that person’s
employment; or
(2) A copy of a police report,
statements provided by police,
including military police, to magistrates
or judges, charging documents,
protective or restraining orders, military
protective orders, or any other official
record that documents the covered act.
(c) Notwithstanding 47 U.S.C.
222(c)(2), a covered provider; any
officer, director, or employee of a
covered provider; and any vendor,
agent, or contractor of a covered
provider that receives or processes line
separation requests with the survivor’s
consent or as needed to effectuate the
request, shall treat any information
submitted by a survivor under this
subpart as confidential and securely
dispose of the information not later than
90 days after receiving the information.
A covered provider shall not be
prohibited from maintaining a record
that verifies that a survivor fulfilled the
conditions of a line separation request
under this subpart for longer than 90
days after receiving the information so
long as the covered provider also treats
such records as confidential and
securely disposes of them.
(d) Nothing in this section shall affect
any law or regulation of a State
providing communications protections
for survivors (or any similar category of
individuals) that has less stringent
requirements for providing evidence of
a covered act (or any similar category of
conduct) than this section.
§ 64.6402 Separation of Lines from Shared
Mobile Service Contract.
(a) Except as described in paragraph
(b) of this section, not later than two
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
businesses days after receiving a
completed line separation request from
a survivor pursuant to § 64.6401, a
covered provider shall, with respect to
a shared mobile service contract under
which the survivor and the abuser each
use a line:
(1) Separate the line of the survivor,
and the line of any individual in the
care of the survivor, from the shared
mobile service contract; or
(2) Separate the line of the abuser
from the shared mobile service contract.
(b) If a covered provider cannot
operationally or technically effectuate a
line separation request, the covered
provider shall:
(1) Notify the survivor who submitted
the request of that infeasibility at the
time of the request or, in the case of a
survivor who has submitted the request
using remote means, not later than 2
business days after receiving the
request; and
(2) Provide the survivor with
information about other alternatives to
submitting a line separation request,
including starting a new line of service.
(c) A covered provider shall offer a
survivor the ability to submit a line
separation request through secure
remote means that are easily navigable,
provided that remote options are
commercially available and technically
feasible.
(d) A covered provider shall notify a
survivor seeking relief under this
subpart, in clear and accessible
language, that the covered provider may
contact the survivor, or designated
representative of the survivor, to
confirm the line separation, or if the
covered provider is unable to complete
the line separation for any reason. A
covered provider shall provide this
notification through remote means,
provided that remote means are
commercially available and technically
feasible.
(e) When completing a line separation
request submitted by a survivor through
remote means, a covered provider shall
allow the survivor to elect in the
manner in which a covered provider
may:
(1) Contact the survivor, or designated
representative of the survivor, in
response to the request, if necessary; or
(2) Notify the survivor, or designated
representative of the survivor, of the
inability of the covered provider to
complete the line separation.
(f) A covered provider shall notify the
survivor of the date on which the
covered provider intends to give any
formal notice to the primary account
holder if a covered provider separates a
line from a shared mobile service
contract under this section and the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15591
primary account holder is not the
survivor.
(g) A covered provider that receives a
line separation request from a survivor
pursuant to this subpart shall inform the
survivor of:
(1) The existence of the designated
program;
(2) Who qualifies to participate in the
designated program under 47 CFR
54.424; and
(3) How to participate in the
designated program under 47 CFR
54.424.
(h) A covered provider may not make
separation of a line from a shared
mobile service contract under paragraph
(a) of this section contingent on any
limitation or requirement other than
those described in paragraphs (i) and (j)
of this section, including, but not
limited to:
(1) Payment of a fee, penalty, or other
charge;
(2) Maintaining contractual or billing
responsibility of a separated line with
the provider;
(3) Approval of separation by the
primary account holder, if the primary
account holder is not the survivor;
(4) A prohibition or limitation,
including payment of a fee, penalty, or
other charge, on number portability,
provided such portability is technically
feasible;
(5) A prohibition or limitation,
including payment of a fee, penalty, or
other charge, on a request to change
phone numbers;
(6) A prohibition or limitation on the
separation of lines as a result of arrears
accrued by the account; or
(7) An increase in the rate charged for
the mobile service plan of the primary
account holder with respect to service
on any remaining line or lines.
(i) Nothing in paragraph (h) of this
section shall be construed to require a
covered provider to provide a rate plan
for the primary account holder that is
not otherwise commercially available.
(j) Notwithstanding paragraph (g) of
this section, beginning on the date on
which a covered provider transfers
billing responsibilities for and use of a
telephone number or numbers to a
survivor under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the survivor shall assume
financial responsibility, including for
monthly service costs, for the
transferred telephone number or
numbers, unless ordered otherwise by a
court. Upon the transfer of a telephone
number under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section to separate the line of the abuser
from a shared mobile service contract,
the survivor shall have no further
financial responsibilities to the
transferring covered provider for the
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
15592
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
services provided by the transferring
covered provider for the telephone
number or for any mobile device
associated with the telephone number.
(k) Notwithstanding paragraph (g) of
this section, beginning on the date on
which a covered provider transfers
billing responsibilities for and rights to
a telephone number or numbers to a
survivor under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the survivor shall not assume
financial responsibility for any mobile
device associated with the separated
line, unless the survivor purchased the
mobile device, or affirmatively elects to
maintain possession of the mobile
device, unless otherwise ordered by a
court.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:00 Mar 10, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 64.6403 Notice of Line Separation
Availability to Consumers.
A covered provider shall make
information about the line separation
options and processes described in this
subpart readily available to consumers:
(a) On the website and mobile
application of the provider;
(b) In physical stores; and
(c) In other forms of public-facing
consumer communication.
§ 64.6404 Protection of the Privacy of Calls
and Text Messages to Covered Hotlines.
All covered providers and wireline
providers of voice service shall:
(a) Omit from consumer-facing logs of
calls and text messages any records of
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
calls or text messages to covered
hotlines in the central database
established by the Commission.
(b) Maintain internal records of calls
and text messages excluded from call
and text logs pursuant to paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) Be responsible for downloading
the initial and subsequent updates to
the central database established by the
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023–04489 Filed 3–10–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\13MRP2.SGM
13MRP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15558-15592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04489]
[[Page 15557]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 48
March 13, 2023
Part III
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 54 and 64
Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link
Up Reform and Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15558]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 54 and 64
[WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-450; FCC 23-9; FR ID 129141]
Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline
and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) begins the process of implementing the Safe Connections
Act, taking significant steps to improve access to communications
services for survivors of domestic abuse and related crimes. We seek
comment on the implementation of the Safe Connections Act's statutory
requirement that mobile service providers separate the line of a
survivor of domestic violence (and other related crimes and abuse), and
any individuals in the care of the survivor, from a mobile service
contract shared with an abuser within two business days after receiving
a request from the survivor. We also seek comment on a proposal to
require service providers to omit from consumer-facing logs of calls
and text messages any records of calls or text messages to hotlines
listed in a central database of hotlines that the Commission would
create. We also seek comment on whether to designate the Lifeline
program or the Affordable Connectivity Program as a means for providing
survivors suffering financial hardship with emergency communications
support for up to six months, as required by the Safe Connections Act.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 12, 2023, and reply comments
are due on or before May 12, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before May 12, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 22-
238, 11-42, and 21-450, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy 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.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. All
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Travis Hahn, Wireline Competition
Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, at
[email protected] or Chris Laughlin, Wireline Competition Bureau,
Competition Policy Division, at [email protected]. For additional
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information
collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to
[email protected] or contact Nicole On'gele at (202) 418-2991.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-
450, adopted on February 16, 2023 and released on February 17, 2023.
The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-9A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable
accommodations (e.g., accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 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.
This document contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce
[[Page 15559]]
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, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due May 12, 2023. 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; (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; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 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.
Synopsis
I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. Reliable, safe, and affordable connectivity is critical to
survivors leaving a relationship involving domestic violence, human
trafficking, and other related crimes or abuse. This connectivity can
assist survivors in breaking away from their abusers and finding and
maintaining contact with safe support networks, including family and
friends. Survivors whose devices and associated telephone numbers are
part of multi-line or shared plans (commonly referred to as ``family
plans''), however, can face difficulties separating lines from such
plans and maintaining affordable service. Further, having access to an
independent phone or broadband connection is important for survivors to
be able to communicate and access other available services without fear
of their communications, location, or other private information being
revealed to their abusers.
2. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we continue the
work we initiated in July of last year to support the connectivity
needs of survivors. Specifically, we begin the process of implementing
the Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe Connections Act), enacted this
past December, which provides important statutory support for specific
measures to benefit survivors. We seek comment on proposed rules that
would help survivors separate service lines from accounts that include
their abusers, protect the privacy of calls made by survivors to
domestic abuse hotlines, and support survivors that pursue a line
separation request and face financial hardship through the Commission's
affordability programs. We believe that these measures will aid
survivors who lack meaningful support and communications options when
establishing independence from an abuser.
A. Separation of Lines From Shared Mobile Service Contracts
3. In this section, we propose new rules to codify and implement
the line separation provisions in the Safe Connections Act. Our
proposed rules largely track the statutory language, with some
additional proposals and requests for comment concerning other issues
that may be implicated by line separations.
1. Definitions
4. We propose to adopt in our rules the definitions of the terms
listed in new section 345 of the Communications Act, as added by the
Safe Connections Act, including ``covered act,'' ``survivor,''
``abuser,'' ``covered provider,'' ``shared mobile services contract,''
and ``primary account holder.'' We seek comment on each proposed
definition and invite commenters to address our specific questions
below.
5. Covered Act. We propose to define ``covered act'' as conduct
that constitutes (1) a crime described in section 40002(a) of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291(a)), including, but
not limited to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, and sex trafficking; (2) an act or practice described in
paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102) (relating to severe forms of
trafficking in persons and sex trafficking, respectively); or (3) an
act under State law, Tribal law, or the Uniform Code of Military
Justice that is similar to an offense described in clause (1) or (2) of
this paragraph. Our proposed definition is identical to the term as
defined in the Safe Connections Act, except that we propose to add the
clause ``but not limited to'' in describing the crimes covered by the
first clause. Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 describes a number of crimes and abuses in addition to those
crimes enumerated in the Safe Connections Act's definition of ``covered
act,'' including abuse in later life, child abuse and neglect, child
maltreatment, economic abuse, elder abuse, female genital mutilation or
cutting, forced marriage, and technological abuse. Although the Safe
Connections Act describes a covered act as ``a crime described'' in
section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act ``including domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex
trafficking,'' it does not say that only those listed crimes may be
included. We believe the best reading of the definition of ``covered
act'' in the Safe Connections Act includes all crimes listed in section
40002(a); we see no reason why Congress would choose to protect only a
subset of survivors of these crimes. We believe the second clause of
the definition of ``covered act'' in the Safe Connections Act, which
identifies specific subsections (``an act or practice described in
paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000'') also supports our analysis because in
contrast, the first clause of the definition of ``covered act'' does
not limit the definition to specific subsections of section 40002(a) of
the Violence Against Women Act. We seek comment on this proposed
analysis. How should the fact that the Safe Connections Act
specifically mentions ``[d]omestic violence, dating violence, stalking,
sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes'' in its findings
in section 3, while not mentioning the other crimes and abuses listed
in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act, factor into our
analysis? To what extent can we include in our definition abuses
described in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act that
may not be ``crimes'' under the statute?
6. We seek comment on whether, instead of mirroring the statutory
language in our definition of ``covered act,'' the Commission's rules
should list out the crimes identified in section 40002(a) of the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and paragraph (11) or (12) of
section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Would
such an approach help provide additional clarity of the scope of the
Safe Connections Act's protections for covered providers and survivors?
Would adopting such a rule run the risk of our rules becoming
inconsistent with statutory intent if Congress revises either of those
statutes in the future?
7. Finally, consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we propose
that a criminal conviction or any other
[[Page 15560]]
determination of a court shall not be required for conduct to
constitute a covered act. We seek comment on our proposal. The Safe
Connections Act separately addresses the evidence needed to establish
that a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed. We
address those requirements below.
8. Survivor. We propose to define ``survivor'' as an individual who
is not less than 18 years old and (1) against whom a covered act has
been committed or allegedly committed; or (2) who cares for another
individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly
committed (provided that the individual providing care did not commit
or allegedly commit the covered act), mirroring the Safe Connections
Act's definition of ``survivor.'' We seek comment on our proposal. Are
there other situations or circumstances in which an individual should
be considered a ``survivor'' under our rules, and if so, under what
authority would we expand that definition?
9. We seek comment on how we should interpret the Safe Connections
Act's language describing a survivor as an individual ``who cares for
another individual'' against whom a covered act has been committed or
allegedly committed, to provide guidance to both covered providers and
survivors. We observe that the statutory language is broad--Congress
did not limit this provision to only those situations in which an
individual is providing care to family members, minors, dependents, or
those residing in the same household, when it could have chosen to do
so. It also did not provide direction on how to otherwise determine
when an individual is providing ``care'' for another individual. Should
we define what it means to ``care for'' another person or what it means
to be ``in the care of'' another individual, and if so, what should
that definition be? Is there a common understanding of what it means to
``care for'' or be ``in the care'' of another person? Has the meaning
of ``in the care of'' or a comparable phrase been defined elsewhere in
statute or regulation that could appropriately be used for reference in
the present context?
10. Absent a common understanding or similar definition to
reference, we believe that at a minimum, this phrase should be
understood to encompass any individuals who are part of the same
household, including adult children, as well as adults who are older,
and those who are in the care of another individual by valid court
order or power of attorney. To support this interpretation, we
tentatively conclude that ``household'' should have the same meaning as
it does in Sec. 54.400 of our rules. We seek comment on our proposed
interpretation. Is there any reason to conclude that Congress intended
this phrase to be interpreted more narrowly, for example, to include
only those under the age of 18 for whom an individual is the parent,
guardian, or caretaker? We tentatively conclude that the Safe
Connections Act contemplates that an individual who is the parent,
guardian, or caretaker of a person over the age of 18 qualifies as
someone who provides care for another person and, thus, as a
``survivor'' when a covered act is committed against the person for
whom the individual cares. Do commenters agree, or does the Safe
Connections Act contemplate that any such persons over the age of 18
would be considered ``survivors'' in their own right? Would
interpreting the Safe Connections Act, and our rules, in any of the
ways we have discussed narrow or broaden the applicability of the
protections in a way not intended by Congress? If we conclude that
certain persons over the age of 18 can qualify as being in the care of
another individual, should we permit those persons to object to their
line being separated following a line separation request by the
``survivor'' who cares for them? If so, what sort of notice or
opportunity to object must covered providers give to these users? We
seek comment on how best to interpret this statutory language so as to
provide the protections that Congress intended for individuals who are
victims of a covered act.
11. Abuser. We propose to define ``abuser'' for purposes of our
rules as an individual who has committed or allegedly committed a
covered act against (1) an individual who seeks relief under section
345 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules;
or (2) an individual in the care of an individual who seeks relief
under section 345 of the Communications Act and the Commission's
implementing rules, mirroring the substance of the Safe Connections
Act. We seek comment on our proposal. Can commenters identify any
reason to depart from the statutory definition of ``abuser''? We note
that we do not intend our definition to serve as independent evidence
of, or establish legal liability in regards to, any alleged crime or
act of abuse, and propose to adopt this definition for purposes of
implementing the Safe Connections Act only. We seek comment on this
proposed approach.
12. Covered Provider. We propose to define ``covered provider'' as
a provider of ``a private mobile service or commercial mobile service,
as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. 332(d),'' consistent with the
Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on our proposal. Section 332(d)
defines ``commercial mobile service'' as ``any mobile service (as
defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is provided for profit and makes
interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such
classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a
substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the
Commission,'' and defines ``private mobile service'' as ``any mobile
service (as defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is not a commercial mobile
service or the functional equivalent of a commercial mobile service, as
specified by regulation by the Commission.''
13. We tentatively conclude that covered providers would include
both facilities-based mobile network operators, as well as resellers/
mobile virtual network operators. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. We also seek comment on whether Congress intended the line
separation obligation to apply to all providers of commercial mobile
service or private mobile service, as the Commission might interpret
and apply those definitions, regardless of underlying technology used
to provide the service (e.g., whether provided through land, mobile, or
satellite stations). We further seek comment on whether we should
interpret the statutory definition of ``covered provider'' to include
providers of mobile broadband service that do not also offer mobile
voice service, and if so, whether implementation of the line separation
obligation would differ for those providers. If so, how would it
differ?
14. Shared Mobile Service Contract. We propose to define ``shared
mobile service contract'' as a mobile service contract for an account
that includes not less than two lines of service and does not include
enterprise services offered by a covered provider. We seek comment on
our proposal, which mirrors the Safe Connections Act's definition
except insofar as it replaces the phrase ``not less than 2 consumers''
with ``not less than two lines of service.'' It is our understanding
that mobile service contracts are typically structured around the
number of lines of service associated with an account rather than the
number of consumers. We invite comment on this proposal. We tentatively
conclude that a ``line'' includes all of the services associated with
that line under the shared mobile
[[Page 15561]]
service contract, regardless of their classification, including voice,
text, and data services, and we seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. We also tentatively conclude that a ``line of service''
under a shared mobile service contract is one that is linked to a
telephone number, even if the services provided over that line of
service are not voice services. We seek comment on our analysis, and
whether we should provide additional guidance on the bounds of ``line
of service'' in implementing the Safe Connections Act.
15. If we do not interpret ``consumers'' to mean ``lines,'' as
proposed, we seek comment on how providers would verify the number of
consumers on an account. Would requiring covered providers to verify
the number of consumers rather than the number of lines possibly hamper
a survivor's ability to obtain a line separation? If we keep the
statutory terminology of ``consumers,'' would there be additional
privacy concerns, e.g., because covered providers would have to collect
information about the additional consumers on shared mobile service
contracts (including minors who may use the line) other than the
primary account holder? How burdensome would such additional
information collection requirements be for covered providers,
particularly small providers?
16. We tentatively conclude that ``shared mobile service contract''
includes mobile service contracts for voice, text, and data services
offered by covered providers, as well as both pre-paid and post-paid
accounts, to the extent that a service contract exists. We seek comment
on these tentative conclusions. Do covered providers offer pre-paid
contracts for accounts that include at least two lines?
17. We observe that the definition of ``shared mobile service
contract'' explicitly excludes ``enterprise services.'' We tentatively
conclude that enterprise services generally entail those products or
services specifically offered to entities to support and manage
business operations, which may provide greater security, integration,
support, or other features than are ordinarily available to mass market
customers, and would exclude services marketed and sold on a
standardized basis to residential customers and small businesses. Do
commenters agree? We believe interpreting the exclusion for
``enterprise services'' in this way would address the needs of
survivors who use a line on a shared mobile service contract that may
be structured under a family-run small business or paid for by a
business account owned by the abuser, for example. We seek comment on
our approach, and whether we should define ``enterprise services''
differently to address the needs of survivors.
18. Primary Account Holder. We propose to define ``primary account
holder'' as ``an individual who is a party to a mobile service contract
with a covered provider,'' mirroring the definition in the Safe
Connections Act. We seek comment on our proposal, and whether there are
any considerations that should cause us to depart from the statutory
definition. Are there situations in which there is more than a single
individual who is party to a mobile service contract?
2. Requirement To Separate Lines Upon Request
19. Processing of Line Separation Requests. Consistent with the
Safe Connections Act, for shared mobile service contracts under which a
survivor and abuser each use a line, our proposed rule would require
covered providers, not later than two business days after receiving a
completed line separation request from a survivor, to (1) separate the
line of the survivor, and the line of any individual in the care of the
survivor, from the shared mobile service contract, or (2) separate the
line of the abuser from the shared mobile service contract.
20. Because the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to
implement line separation requests from survivors for shared mobile
service contracts ``under which the survivor and the abuser each use a
line,'' we propose to interpret this statutory language to mean that
neither the abuser nor the survivor needs to be the primary account
holder for a line separation to be effectuated, regardless of whose
line is separated from the account. We also believe that a person who
does not use a line on an account--but is a ``survivor'' under the
statute because the person is someone who cares for another individual
against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed--
would be able to request a line separation because the definition of
``survivor'' allows that person to stand in for the individual in their
care. Additionally, we also believe that the structure of the Safe
Connections Act gives survivors discretion to request separation from
the account of either the line of the survivor (and the lines of any
individuals in the survivor's care) or the line of the abuser, but we
seek comment on whether the covered provider also retains the
discretion to determine whether to separate the line of the abuser or
the line(s) of the survivor. We seek comment on our proposed
interpretations, and on their potential implications and challenges.
For instance, what implementation challenges will covered providers
face, if any, if the survivor seeks to remove the abuser from the
account but neither the survivor nor the abuser is the primary account
holder? Do covered providers have existing processes to remove a
primary account holder from an account and designate another user as
the primary account holder, such as following the death of a primary
account holder, that could be applied if the survivor seeks to remove
the abuser from the account and the abuser is the primary account
holder?
21. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers, upon
receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, to
separate the line of the survivor and the line of any individual in the
care of the survivor. As with the definition of ``survivor,'' the Safe
Connections Act does not explain how to determine who qualifies as ``in
the care of'' the survivor for the purposes of line separation
requests. We believe that we should adopt the same approach for making
this determination as we do for interpreting the definition of
``survivor.'' Unlike the definition of ``survivor,'' however, we
believe that for the purposes of line separation requests, an
individual ``in the care'' of a survivor need not be someone against
whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed. As
previously discussed, the Safe Connections Act defines ``survivor'' as
including an individual at least 18 years old who ``cares for another
individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly
committed,'' but it requires covered providers to separate the lines of
both the survivor and ``any individual in the care of the survivor,''
upon request of the survivor. We propose to interpret these provisions
to mean that a covered provider must separate the lines, upon request,
of any individuals in the care of survivors (however that is defined)
without regard to whether a covered act has been committed or allegedly
committed against the individuals in the care of the survivor. We seek
comment on our proposed interpretation of these provisions.
22. Under the Safe Connections Act, covered providers must
effectuate line separations not later than two business days after
receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor. We
tentatively conclude covered providers should have two full business
days following the day the request was made to complete a line
separation request, which aligns with the Commission's
[[Page 15562]]
rules governing computation of time related to Commission actions.
Should we adopt another meaning for what constitutes two business days,
such as 48 hours from the time the request was made for requests made
during business hours, and 48 hours from the start of the next business
day for requests not made during business hours? Should we encourage
covered providers to effectuate separations in less than two business
days, if feasible? We seek comment on whether we should establish a
time limit or other guidelines for how long covered providers have to
determine whether a line separation request is incomplete. Because line
separation requests may be time sensitive, we believe that, if
feasible, covered providers should review requests to make this
determination promptly, and ideally make this determination and either
effectuate a line separation or reject an incomplete request within the
two business day timeframe established by the statute. We believe this
will enable survivors to quickly take steps to correct errors or submit
a new request, if appropriate. Once a covered provider determines a
request is complete and that there is no other basis for rejection, we
believe the statute is clear that the provider has no more than two
business days, however that is calculated, to effectuate the request,
and we seek comment on this conclusion.
23. We also seek comment on the reasons covered providers may
reject a request and what survivors can do upon receiving a rejection.
At a minimum, we expect that covered providers may reject a request
because the provider was unable to authenticate that the survivor is
the user of the specified line, the request is missing required
verification information or documentation, information or documentation
submitted by the survivor is invalid, or the line separation is
operationally or technically infeasible by the provider. We believe
that any corrections, resubmissions, or selected alternatives for
obtaining a line separation should be processed within the two-
business-day timeframe established by the Safe Connections Act. We seek
comment on how to balance our interest in allowing survivors to make
repeated requests to obtain a line separation with our interest in
preventing fraud on multiline shared accounts. Should we require
covered providers to establish procedures for determining whether
repeated requests are fraudulent and decline to effectuate line
separations in those instances?
24. Operational and Technical Infeasibility. Under the Safe
Connections Act, covered providers who cannot operationally or
technically effectuate a line separation request are relieved of the
obligation to effectuate line separation requests. Because this
provision specifies that covered providers are only relieved of the
``requirement to effectuate a line separation request,'' we believe
that all covered providers must offer the ability for survivors to
submit requests for line separations described in the statute even if
the provider may not be able to effectuate such separations in all
instances. We seek comment on this interpretation.
25. We seek comment to understand what operational and technical
limitations covered providers may face. We expect that many covered
providers already have processes in place to effectuate line
separations and seek comment on this belief. We tentatively conclude
that any line separation a covered provider can complete within two
business days under its existing capabilities, as those may change over
time, would not be operationally or technically infeasible under the
Safe Connections Act. We also believe that the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to take all reasonable steps to effectuate
any line separation requests they receive in accordance with the
statute and the rules we adopt, and we seek comment on how we would
determine whether the steps taken meet this standard. Must covered
providers change their policies and procedures and invest in equipment
and technology upgrades to be able to effectuate all or a greater
number of line separations? Should we instead simply define what
circumstances qualify as operational and technical limitations and
require covered providers to take steps to effectuate line separations
in all other circumstances? We seek comment on the potential
approaches, including their costs and burdens on covered providers,
including small providers. Regardless of any requirements we establish,
we recognize that there may be instances when operational and technical
limitations prevent covered providers from effectuating the types of
line separations established by the Safe Connections Act or from doing
so precisely as the statute and our rules require. We believe that in
these instances, the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to
provide the survivor with alternatives to submitting a line separation
request, including starting a new line of service. We also believe that
in these circumstances, covered providers should offer, allow survivors
to elect, and effectuate any alternative options that would allow
survivors to obtain a line separation. For instance, some covered
providers may not be able to separate an abuser's line from an account
if the abuser is the primary account holder, but would be able to
separate the survivor's line from the account. Likewise, some covered
providers may be capable of processing line separation requests, but
not in the middle of a billing cycle.
3. Submission of Line Separation Requests
26. Information Required to Process Line Separation Requests. The
Safe Connections Act requires that survivors submit to covered
providers certain information with their line separation requests, and
we propose to codify those requirements in our rules. First, under our
proposed rule, a survivor submitting a line separation request must
expressly indicate that the survivor is requesting relief from the
covered provider under section 345 of the Communications Act and our
rules and identify each line that should be separated. In cases where a
survivor is seeking separation of the survivor's line, the request must
state that the survivor is the user of that specific line. In cases
where a survivor is seeking separation of a line of an individual under
the care of the survivor, the request must also include an affidavit
setting forth that the individual is in the care of the survivor and is
the user of that specific line. In support of efforts to deter fraud
and abuse, we seek comment on whether we should mandate requirements
for any affidavits that are submitted. At a minimum, we believe that
affidavits should be signed and dated. Should they also be notarized?
Can or must we rely on the alternative declaration mechanism provided
for by 28 U.S.C. 1746? Should affidavits regarding individuals in the
care of a survivor include the individual's name, relationship to the
survivor, or other information? Are there privacy concerns with
potentially requiring this additional information?
27. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we also tentatively
conclude that when a survivor is instead requesting that a covered
provider separate the line of the abuser from the shared mobile service
contract, the line separation request should also state that the abuser
is the user of that specific line. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Though not required under the Safe Connections Act, should
we require that the line separation request include an affidavit that
the abuser is the user of a specific line, rather than
[[Page 15563]]
just a statement? We seek comment on whether covered providers need any
other information to effectuate line separation requests. Commenters
should address any privacy concerns from requiring such additional
information.
28. Because the Safe Connections Act requires that covered
providers ``shall'' separate the lines requested by a survivor after
receiving a completed line separation request, we believe that this
statutory language is best read as requiring the covered provider to
complete the line separation as long as the request provides the
information required by the Safe Connections Act and our implementing
rules, and the line separation is operationally and technically
feasible. In other words, we do not believe that the Safe Connections
Act requires covered providers to take any steps to separately verify
the legitimacy of the information provided; we seek comment, however,
on whether the statute permits them to do so, and if so, what the
implications are for both covered providers and survivors. We seek
comment on our proposed interpretation of this provision. What would be
the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach?
29. The Safe Connections Act does not address whether or how
covered providers should authenticate the identity of a survivor to
ensure that a person making a line separation request is actually a
user of a line on the account. We recognize that unless a survivor is
the primary account holder, covered providers may have limited
information about the survivor and therefore fewer methods to
authenticate the survivor's identity. We also appreciate that many
survivors may not be in a position to supply government issued
identification or other official identifying information to covered
providers for authentication purposes. We are concerned that, absent
any form of authentication, line separation requests could be easily
abused by bad actors with significant consequences to consumers,
similar to instances of subscriber identify module (SIM) swap and port-
out fraud. We note, however, that in response to the Notice of Inquiry,
some commenters argued that maximizing the ability of survivors to
access any benefits the Commission establishes should supersede fraud
and abuse concerns, at least absent evidence of widespread fraud or
abuse. We seek comment on the appropriate balance between these two
competing public interests.
30. We seek comment on whether we should require covered providers
to authenticate the identity of a survivor to verify that the survivor
is actually the user of a line on the account before processing a line
separation request. When the survivor is the primary account holder or
a user designated to have account authority by the primary account
holder (designated user), we believe covered providers should
authenticate survivors just as they would any other primary account
holder or designated user, and we seek comment on this proposal. If the
survivor is not the primary account holder or a designated user, we
seek comment on whether we should designate the forms of authentication
that are appropriate for covered providers to use for line separation
requests, and if so, which forms of authentication we should designate.
We believe in this particular context that SMS text-based and app-based
authentications could be useful because they rely on the user having
access to the device associated with the line. We also seek comment on
whether call detail information could be a viable alternative in these
circumstances because it requires knowledge of call history by the
user. Are there other authentication methods that would be both
feasible for survivors and secure? We observe that some comments
received in response to our 2021 SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud NPRM
discussed security shortcomings of these and other authentication
mechanisms, and several commenters in that proceeding urged us to give
providers flexibility in deciding which forms of authentication to use
to reduce costs and burdens and avoid creating a roadmap for bad
actors. To what extent should the concerns raised in that proceeding
guide our decision making here? Should we allow covered providers
flexibility to determine which forms of authentication to offer? If so,
should we require covered providers to offer multiple forms of
authentication and give survivors the opportunity to authenticate using
any method available? How burdensome would it be for covered providers
if we were to require them to authenticate that survivors are users of
a line on a shared mobile account, particularly for small providers?
How burdensome would such a requirement be on survivors seeking line
separation requests, and would such requirements be consistent with
Congressional intent? Finally, we seek comment on how any
authentication process we establish for line separations should
intersect with any identity verification process survivors must undergo
to access the designated program.
31. We recognize that covered providers may require additional
information to assign the survivor as a primary account holder. Beyond
the information already discussed, what information would covered
providers need from survivors to establish them as primary account
holders? We note that certain information, like full residential
address, billing address, Social Security Number, and financial
information can be extremely sensitive or difficult to provide for
survivors that may be trying to physically and financially distance
themselves from their abusers. Residential address information can be
particularly problematic because survivors may not be residing at one
location or have a fixed address, and if any address information is
exposed, it may allow an abuser to locate a survivor. If a survivor is
unable to provide all the information that is typically required to
establish a primary account holder, should we require covered providers
to modify the information necessary to accommodate survivors? If so,
what information should we permit covered providers to require from
survivors? If not, are there adequate alternative options for survivors
to obtain needed communications services?
32. Additionally, although we appreciate that many survivors may
have limited information about the abuser and the account associated
with the mobile service contract, we seek comment on whether we should
require survivors who are not the primary account holder to submit
other information to ensure that line separations are being processed
for the correct account and to minimize fraudulent line separations. We
specifically seek comment on whether we should require survivors to
submit one or more of the following pieces of information about the
account or primary account holder even if the primary account holder is
the abuser: account number, primary phone number associated with the
account, zip code, address associated with the account, and PIN or
password associated with the account.
33. Documentation Demonstrating Survivor Status. Consistent with
the Safe Connections Act, our proposed rule would require survivors
seeking a line separation to submit information that verifies that an
individual who uses a line under the shared mobile service contract
(i.e., an ``abuser'') has committed or allegedly committed a covered
act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care. To
meet this requirement, survivors must submit one or more of the
eligible
[[Page 15564]]
documents prescribed in the Safe Connections Act: (1) a copy of a
signed affidavit from a licensed medical or mental health care
provider, licensed military medical or mental health care provider,
licensed social worker, victim services provider, or licensed military
victim services provider, or an employee of a court, acting within the
scope of that person's employment; or (2) a copy of a police report,
statements provided by police, including military police, to
magistrates or judges, charging documents, protective or restraining
orders, military protective orders, or any other official record that
documents the covered act. At a minimum, we believe that the
documentation provided should clearly indicate the name of the abuser
and the name of the survivor and make an affirmative statement
indicating that the abuser actually or allegedly committed an act that
qualifies as a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the
care of a survivor. Are there circumstances in which a survivor would
not be able to obtain documentation that provides this information?
Should we require that the documentation include any additional
identifying information about the abuser or the survivor, such as an
address or date of birth? What potential privacy implications would
such a requirement raise, and would requiring such information be
consistent with the Safe Connections Act? As a way to minimize fraud
and abuse of the line separation process, we believe that, to the
extent the documentation includes identifying information about the
abuser or the survivor, covered providers should confirm that the
information matches any comparable identifying information in the
covered provider's records when processing a line separation request.
We also seek comment on whether we should set requirements for the
timeliness of evidence showing a covered act was committed. For
instance, should we require that documentation be dated, or show the
covered act occurred within a certain period prior to the request? If
so, how long? We seek comment on these potential approaches and whether
they are consistent with the Congressional intent of the Safe
Connections Act.
34. We acknowledge that survivors may have difficulty securing the
documents specified by the Safe Connections Act to demonstrate that an
individual using a line on a shared mobile service contract has
committed or allegedly committed a covered act, or doing so in a timely
manner. In the Notice of Inquiry, we asked whether allowing survivors
to submit an affidavit regarding their survivor status would provide
sufficient verification and whether we should permit other options if a
survivor cannot obtain the required documents. Some commenters
expressed support for survivor affidavits and also argued that
survivors should be permitted to submit affidavits from other qualified
third parties not prescribed in the Safe Connections Act, such as
shelters and advocacy organizations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Safe Connections Act, which was adopted by Congress after the Notice of
Inquiry, clearly specifies the documents survivors can submit to
demonstrate survivor status while specifically preserving the right of
states to set less stringent requirements. We seek comment on whether
the Safe Connections Act permits the Commission to establish other
forms of verification that a survivor can submit, and if so, whether we
should permit other forms of verification.
35. As discussed above, we believe that the Safe Connections Act is
best read as requiring covered providers to complete a line separation
as long as the line separation request provides the statutorily
required information, without requiring covered providers to separately
verify the information provided. We recognize that many covered
providers may not have the expertise to determine the authenticity of
such documents and that it would undermine the goals of the Safe
Connections Act if a covered provider denied a line separation based on
an incorrect determination that verification documents submitted by a
survivor are not authentic. Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether and
to what extent we should require or permit covered providers to
validate the authenticity of any documents meant to verify survivor
status that they receive in order to minimize the avenues that bad
actors can use to commit fraud through the line separation process.
36. Finally, we propose to include in our rules the Safe
Connections Act's proviso that section 345 of the Communications Act
(establishing the line separation process) ``shall not affect any law
or regulation of a State providing communications protections for
survivors (or any similar category of individuals) that has less
stringent requirements for providing evidence of a covered act (or any
similar category of conduct) than this subsection,'' and seek comment
on our proposal.
37. Election of the Manner of Communication from Covered Providers.
Under the Safe Connections Act, a covered provider must ``allow the
survivor to elect in the manner in which the covered provider may--(i)
contact the survivor, or designated representative of the survivor, in
response to the request, if necessary; or (ii) notify the survivor, or
designated representative of the survivor, of the inability of the
covered provider to complete the line separation.'' We propose to
codify this requirement in our rules and seek comment on how best to
understand it. We tentatively conclude that this requirement simply
obligates covered providers to allow survivors to select, at the time
they are submitting a line separation request, the manner the covered
provider must use to communicate with a survivor after the survivor
submits the request. We further believe that covered providers must ask
survivors to provide the appropriate contact information with their
request, and, if applicable, their designated representative. We seek
comment on these tentative conclusions.
38. Confidential and Secure Treatment of Personal Information. We
propose to require covered providers, including any officers,
directors, and employees--as well as covered providers' vendors,
agents, or contractors that receive or process line separation requests
with the survivor's consent, or as needed to effectuate the request--to
treat any information submitted by a survivor as part of a line
separation request as confidential and securely dispose of the
information not later than 90 days after receiving the information,
consistent with the Safe Connections Act. Our proposal mirrors the Safe
Connections Act, except that we propose to clarify that ``vendor'' as
used in the Safe Connections Act includes ``contractors'' who may
receive line separation requests in their provision of services to
covered providers. We believe that this interpretation of ``vendor''
reflects the business practices of covered providers and will mitigate
privacy risks to survivors. We seek comment on our proposal.
39. The Safe Connections Act requires confidential treatment and
disposal of information submitted by a survivor ``[n]otwithstanding
section 222(c)(2)'' of the Communications Act, which in turn requires
telecommunications carriers to ``disclose customer proprietary network
information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any
person designated by the customer.'' The Communications Act defines
``customer proprietary network information'' (or CPNI) as ``information
that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type,
destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications
service
[[Page 15565]]
subscribed to by a customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that
is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of
the carrier-customer relationship,'' and ``information contained in the
bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll
service received by a customer of a carrier,'' but does not include
subscriber list information. Thus, to the extent that any information a
survivor submits as part of a line separation request would be
considered CPNI, we believe the Safe Connections Act requires that such
information (as well as information submitted by a survivor that would
not be considered CPNI) should be treated confidentially and disposed
of securely. We seek comment on our analysis. How should we implement
the Safe Connections Act's requirement that information submitted by
survivors be treated as confidential and be securely disposed of
``[n]otwithstanding section 222(c)(2) of the [Communications] Act''?
40. We seek comment on how we should interpret the requirement that
covered providers treat information submitted by survivors as
``confidential,'' and what requirements, if any, we should impose to
ensure such information is disposed of ``securely.'' We are mindful
that requiring and identifying specific data protection mechanisms can
provide a roadmap to bad actors and may also be overtaken by new
technological advancements. Given that, what guidance can we provide to
covered providers as to what would be considered ``confidential''
treatment and ``secure'' disposal under the Safe Connections Act? At a
minimum, we believe that treating such information as confidential
means not disclosing or permitting access to such information except as
to the individual survivor submitting the line separation request,
anyone that the survivor specifically designates, or specific types of
third parties (i.e., vendors, contractors, and agents) as needed to
effectuate the request. Do commenters agree? Are there other specific
actions we should require covered providers to take or not take to
ensure that information remains confidential? For instance, should we
require covered providers to maintain line separation request
information in a separate database or restrict employee access to only
those who need access to that information to effectuate the request?
Should we require such information to be stored with encryption? Can we
construe the obligation on providers to ``treat'' information submitted
in connection with a line separation request as ``confidential'' to
include an obligation not to use or process such information for
certain purposes (e.g., marketing)? If so, what should be permissible
purposes for the use or processing of such information, other than
effectuating the request, if any? What mechanisms, if any, should we
require covered providers to use to ensure that confidential
information is disposed of securely? How burdensome would any such
requirements be on covered providers, particularly small providers?
Should unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information submitted
by survivors as part of a line separation request be considered
evidence that a covered provider does not treat such information
confidentially?
41. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we also propose to
make clear that the requirement to securely dispose of information
submitted by a survivor within 90 days does not prohibit a covered
provider from maintaining a record that verifies that a survivor
fulfilled the conditions of a line separation request for longer than
90 days. We believe that the best interpretation of this provision
presumes that any such records will not contain any information
submitted by survivors, which, as discussed, would be deemed
confidential and subject to secure disposal within 90 days.
Nonetheless, we propose that covered providers also treat such records
as confidential and securely dispose of them. We seek comment on our
proposals. Should we require covered providers to dispose of the
records verifying the fulfillment of a line separation request within a
certain timeframe, and if so, what would be an appropriate timeframe?
Are there reasons why a covered provider, or a survivor, would need to
retain such records of fulfilling the conditions of a line separation
request, beyond their potential need for enrollment in the designated
program providing emergency communications support?
42. Means for Submitting Line Separation Requests. The Safe
Connections Act directs covered providers to ``offer a survivor the
ability to submit a line separation request . . . through secure remote
means that are easily navigable, provided that remote options are
commercially available and technically feasible.'' We propose to codify
this requirement in our rules and seek comment on how to implement it.
43. Although the Safe Connections Act does not define what
constitutes ``remote means,'' we tentatively conclude that it is a
mechanism for submitting a line separation request that does not
require the survivor to interact in person with an employee of the
covered provider at a physical location. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. For example, we believe that requiring a visit to
a brick and mortar store would not constitute remote means. Conversely,
we believe that a form on a covered provider's website with the ability
to input required information and attach necessary documents would
constitute a remote means. We also believe that submissions via email,
a form on a provider's mobile app, a chat feature on a provider's
website, interactive voice response (IVR) phone calls, and postal mail
would constitute remote means. Would a live telephone interaction, text
message communication, or video chat with a customer service
representative constitute remote means as contemplated by the Safe
Connections Act? We seek comment on our proposed analysis of what
constitutes remote means. In identifying permissible remote means,
should we take into consideration whether the means are consistent with
or similar to the means survivors must use to apply for the designated
program discussed below to minimize the burdens on survivors? We note
that any remote means must permit survivors to submit any necessary
documentation, although we seek comment on whether covered providers
should be able to offer means that allow or require survivors to
initiate a request using one method (such as an IVR phone call) and
submit the documentation through another method (such as via email). We
also seek comment on whether we should require providers to accept
documentation in any format, including, for example, pictures of
documents or screenshots. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the
Safe Connections Act would permit covered providers to offer survivors
means that are not considered remote so long as the provider does not
require survivors to use those non-remote means or make it harder for
survivors to access remote means than to access non-remote means.
44. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to offer
remote means for submitting line separation requests only if such means
are ``technically feasible'' and ``commercially available.'' As a
general matter, are there remote means for survivors to submit line
separation requests that are technically feasible to implement and
commercially available for all covered providers, including small
providers? If so, which ones? If not, what steps must covered
providers, including small providers, take to make remote means
technically
[[Page 15566]]
feasible or how long before they are commercially available? Relatedly,
how long will it take covered providers to select, implement, test, and
launch remote means for line separation requests, and how does that
timeline differ depending on the potential requirements we discuss
above? Can covered providers adopt or modify existing systems that they
use in other aspects of their business to provide survivors the ability
to submit remote requests? Additionally, what are the costs associated
with this process and the varying alternative requirements, and do they
differ for small providers?
45. The Safe Connections Act requires that the means of submission,
in addition to being remote, must be ``secure,'' and we seek comment on
the meaning of this term. We tentatively conclude that any means a
covered provider offers survivors to submit a line separation request,
including non-remote means, must be secure, and seek comment on our
tentative conclusion. We believe that, at a minimum, secure means are
those that prevent unauthorized access to or disclosure of the
information and documentation submitted with the line separation
request during the submission process. Should we define what would
constitute ``secure'' in greater detail--and if so, how--or should we
allow covered providers flexibility to adopt means they deem
``secure''? Specifically, should we require that any electronic means
of submission use encrypted transmission? Are there particular means
that we should deem to be unsecure in all instances? As with the
Commission's CPNI rules, should unauthorized disclosure of, or access
to, information submitted as part of a line separation request be
considered evidence that a covered provider does not provide a
``secure'' means of transmission?
46. The means of submitting a request must also be ``easily
navigable,'' and we invite comment on the meaning of this phrase. As an
initial matter, we tentatively conclude the means for submitting a
request must be easily navigable for individuals with disabilities, and
we seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Does easily navigable
also mean that any user interface or forms related to line separation
requests must be easy for survivors to comprehend and use? Does it also
mean that any user interface or form must clearly identify the
information and documentation that a survivor must include with their
request and that survivors must be able to easily insert or attach that
information? Should we develop and mandate a standardized form that
covered providers must use or direct stakeholders to work together to
develop such a form? Additionally, does the phrase ``easily navigable''
place an obligation on covered providers to make the means of making a
line separation request easily findable and accessible by survivors?
47. We seek comment on whether we should adopt additional
requirements concerning the mechanisms for submitting line separation
requests to ensure that all survivors have the ability to submit such
requests and can obtain line separation in a timely manner. To what
extent should covered providers be required to make available remote
means that are accessible to individuals with disabilities? Does the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA)
already require that all or certain means for submitting line
separation requests be accessible for individuals with disabilities? To
what extent should the means through which a covered provider permits
survivors to submit line separation requests be made available in the
languages in which a covered provider advertises its services? Should
the means covered providers make available for submitting line
separation requests ask survivors for their preferred language from
among those in which the covered provider advertises? Additionally, we
invite feedback on whether we should require covered providers to offer
more than one means to submit a line separation request and ensure any
such additional means address the needs of survivors who may be using
different technologies or who may have different levels of digital
literacy. Alternatively, should we designate one specific mean or
process that all covered providers must offer to fulfill these
obligations, such as a form on the provider's website, but also allow
covered providers to offer other additional means or processes if they
so choose? We seek comment on how costly and burdensome any such
requirements would be for covered providers, particularly small
providers.
48. Given the difficult circumstances that survivors may be
experiencing at the time they make a line separation request, we
believe that providers should make it easy for survivors to choose the
best communications service offerings for their needs. Accordingly, we
seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to allow
survivors to indicate their service choices when they are submitting a
line separation request. If so, we seek comment on what constitutes the
full scope of service options covered providers should be required to
offer to survivors, but tentatively conclude that the Safe Connections
Act makes clear that survivors can seek to: (1) start a new line of
service; (2) keep the existing service plan, with the abuser's line
separated from the account; (3) select a new plan from among all
commercially available plans the covered provider offers for which the
survivor may be eligible, including any prepaid plans; (4) obtain
benefits through the designated program if available through the
provider; (5) switch providers by porting the lines of the survivor and
anyone on the survivor's account to a new provider selected by the
survivor, if technically feasible; and (6) move the line to an existing
account of another person with service from the covered provider. What
are the pros and cons of our proposed approach? For example, would this
requirement maximize the simplicity for survivors navigating the line
separation process? Conversely, how burdensome would this requirement
be on covered providers, particularly small providers? Are there
commercially available tools that would allow covered providers to
implement this requirement? Is such a requirement otherwise technically
feasible?
49. Assistance with Completing Line Separation Requests. While the
Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to effectuate line
separations after receiving a completed line separation request from a
survivor, we observe that it permits survivors to indicate a designated
representative for communications regarding line separation requests.
Does the Safe Connections Act permit survivors to rely on assistance
from their designated representative or other individuals, such as
employees of victim service providers, to prepare and submit line
separation requests? If not, why not, and practically speaking, how
would covered providers know whether a survivor relied on such
assistance? If the Safe Connections Act does allow such assistance,
should we establish guidelines regarding this practice? For example,
should we require those assisting survivors to include in the request
their name and relationship to the survivor, along with a statement
that the person assisted the survivor? If so, should we require
providers to request this information through the means they make
available for survivors to submit requests? What would be the costs to
covered providers of any such requirements, particularly for smaller
providers?
[[Page 15567]]
4. Notices, Notifications, and Other Communications
50. We next seek comment on the types of information that must or
should be communicated to survivors and other consumers, and on the
ways covered providers may convey this information. We believe the Safe
Connections Act contemplates three ways that covered providers may
communicate information to survivors: (1) a notice that must be made
readily available to all consumers through the covered providers'
public-facing communication avenues, such a notice on a provider's
website (Notice to Consumers); (2) information that must be provided at
the time a survivor is submitting a line separation request, such as in
the instructions for submitting a line separation request or on the
form used for submitting a request (Concurrent Notice to Survivors);
and (3) notifications that must be delivered to survivors after they
submit a line separation request, such as in a confirmation email for
the line separation submission or a later follow-up message regarding
the status of the submission (Post-Request Notifications).
51. Notice to Consumers. Recognizing that the ability to separate a
line from a shared mobile account will only assist those survivors who
are aware of the option, the Safe Connections Act requires covered
providers to ``make information about the options and process'' for a
line separation request ``readily available to consumers: (1) on the
website and the mobile application of the provider; (2) in physical
stores; and (3) in other forms of public-facing consumer
communication.'' We propose to adopt these requirements in our rules as
a Notice to Consumers, and seek comment on our proposal and its
implementation, including the burdens on covered providers.
52. We seek comment on the specific methods and processes covered
providers should use to provide the Notice to Consumers, and on the
costs and burdens associated with each of these proposed requirements,
particularly for small providers. First, we seek comment on whether we
should provide additional guidance to covered providers regarding how
to make the notice readily available to consumers ``on the website and
mobile application of the provider.'' For example, should we provide
guidance regarding where and how this information should be made
available on covered providers' websites and mobile applications?
Should we specifically require covered providers to post a link to the
notice on their website homepage or mobile application home screen?
Would a prominent link under a ``customer service'' page or ``support''
section of a covered provider's website be ``readily available''?
Should we allow covered providers to determine the most appropriate
method for making the notice available, as long as it is prominent and
easy for consumers to locate?
53. Second, we seek comment on whether we should provide additional
guidance to covered providers as to how they should make the Notice to
Consumers readily available in ``physical stores.'' For example, does
this language require covered providers to furnish information only
upon consumer request? Or should we require covered providers to post
prominent signage and/or have handouts explaining availability of the
line separation option? At a minimum, we believe any flyers, signage,
or other handouts should be clearly visible to consumers and easy to
understand and access. We also tentatively conclude that covered
providers should provide the notice in all languages in which the
provider advertises within that particular store and on its website,
and seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
54. Third, we seek comment on how covered providers should
implement the requirement to provide the Notice to Consumers through
``other forms of public-facing consumer communication.'' What other
forms of public-facing communication do covered providers employ? Would
covered provider bills, advertisements, emails, or social media
accounts be covered under this category? If so, how should covered
providers make the notice readily available through these avenues or
other potential public awareness campaigns? We seek comment on what
specific methods will be most effective in helping covered providers
disseminate information to consumers about line separation
availability.
55. We also seek comment on whether we should specify what
information covered providers must include in the Notice to Consumers
``about the options and process'' for line separation requests or
whether we should instead allow covered providers to determine what
information to include. If we should prescribe the content of the
notice, what information would be most useful to consumers? We
tentatively conclude we should require covered providers to inform
consumers that the Safe Connections Act does not permit covered
providers to make a line separation conditional upon the imposition of
penalties, fees, or other requirements or limitations, and seek comment
on this tentative conclusion. Should we require covered providers to
inform consumers about who qualifies as a survivor and how a survivor
can request a line separation, or to explain any operational or
technical limitations for completing line separation requests and
alternative options survivors can choose to obtain a line separation?
Should we require covered providers to inform consumers of the service
options that may be available to them, or what their financial
responsibilities will be after a line separation?
56. Although the Safe Connections Act does not require covered
providers to include information regarding the designated program in
the Notice to Consumers, we tentatively conclude that they should
include at least basic information concerning the availability of the
designated program in the notice. Given that the Safe Connections Act
requires covered providers to give survivors more detailed information
about the designated program upon receiving a line separation request,
do commenters agree with this approach? As we noted in our Notice of
Inquiry, ``[s]urvivors often face severe financial hardship when
attempting to establish financial independence from an abuser,'' and
concerns about affordability could hold back some survivors from
separating their line from an abuser's. We believe that requiring
covered providers to include information about the availability of
emergency communications support to help with the costs of a separated
line in the Notice to Consumers may make the difference for some
survivors in choosing whether or not to pursue a line separation, is
consistent with the goals of the Safe Connections Act, and would be
minimally burdensome for covered providers. We seek comment on our
tentative conclusions and proposed approach. Are there other materials
or information about line separation requests that would be beneficial
for covered providers to share with survivors concurrently with the
Notice to Consumers?
57. Concurrent Notice to Survivors. The Safe Connections Act
requires a covered provider to notify a survivor seeking a line
separation ``through remote means, provided that remote means are
commercially available and technically feasible,'' and ``in clear and
accessible language[,] that the covered provider may contact the
survivor, or designated representative of the survivor, to confirm the
line separation, or if the covered provider is unable to complete the
line separation for any
[[Page 15568]]
reason.'' In addition to proposing that we codify this requirement in
our rules, we seek comment on its meaning. We tentatively conclude that
this requirement only establishes an obligation that a covered provider
inform the survivor, at the time the survivor submits a line separation
request, that the provider may contact the survivor, or the survivor's
designated representative, to confirm the line separation or inform the
survivor if the provider is unable to complete the line separation. We
believe covered providers should inform survivors that the covered
provider may contact the survivor as part of any instructional
information provided at the time of a line separation request. To the
extent feasible, we also believe this information should be provided
proximate to the moment when the survivor is asked to provide contact
information and elect the manner the provider must use for future
communications. We believe that this approach will allow survivors to
make an informed choice regarding which contact information and manner
of communication is best given their particular circumstances. We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion and approach. Is there any reason
providers should instead provide this information to survivors in a
Post-Request Notification? If yes, should we require that notification
be delivered immediately upon submission of the request? Should we
require providers to provide this information in both a Post-Request
Notification and as a Concurrent Notice to Survivors? Regardless of how
the information is delivered, should we allow or require covered
providers to deliver it using the same means that the survivor used to
submit the line separation request? Above, we tentatively conclude that
covered providers may offer, and therefore that survivors may use, non-
remote means to submit line separation requests. If a survivor submits
a line separation request using non-remote means, does the statute
allow us to, and should we, allow covered providers to deliver the
required information via non-remote means, such as if the survivor
consents, or must covered providers deliver the information via remote
means?
58. Post-Request Notifications. As noted above, covered providers
must allow survivors to select the manner in which a covered provider
will communicate with the survivor about a submitted line separation
request. We do not believe that covered providers must offer all
manners of contact, but we do believe that covered providers must offer
at least one manner of contact that is remote. Consistent with our
tentative conclusion above regarding remote means of submitting line
separation requests, we believe remote means of communication are those
in which the covered provider does not require the survivor to interact
in person with an employee of the provider at a physical location. We
tentatively conclude that remote means of communication would include
emails, text messages, pre-recorded voice calls, push notifications,
in-app messages, and postal mail. We seek comment on this view. Are
there other forms of communication that would qualify, such as live
phone calls or video chats? We do not expect to prohibit covered
providers from offering non-remote forms of communication. Given the
potentially time-sensitive nature of line separation requests, we do
not believe that covered providers should rely on communications
methods that will not be delivered directly to survivors, such as
notifications or messages that a survivor only may see upon logging
into an online account. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that
covered providers must deliver these communications in the survivor's
preferred language if it is one in which the covered provider
advertises. We seek comment on the costs associated with our proposed
approach for covered providers, particularly for small providers.
59. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers that
receive a line separation request from a survivor to inform the
survivor of the existence of the designated program that can provide
emergency communications support to qualifying survivors suffering from
financial hardship, who might qualify for the program, and how to
participate in the program. We propose to codify this requirement and
tentatively conclude that covered providers should have the flexibility
to either provide this information in a Concurrent Notice to Survivors
or a Post-Request Notification delivered immediately after a survivor
submits a line separation request. We also seek comment on exactly what
information covered providers must convey regarding the designated
program. At a minimum, we expect that such material would specifically
inform survivors that their participation in the designated program
will be limited to six months unless they can qualify to participate in
the designated program under the program's general eligibility
requirements. We seek comment on whether we should direct the Universal
Service Administrative Company (USAC), in coordination with the
Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), to develop descriptions of the
designated program and ways in which survivors might apply to the
program, which we would share with covered providers to use for the
required notice. What would be the costs to covered providers for these
requirements, particularly for small providers?
60. We also propose to codify the requirement that a covered
provider that cannot operationally or technically effectuate a line
separation request must: (1) notify the survivor who submitted the
request of that infeasibility, and (2) provide the survivor with
information about other alternatives to submitting a line separation
request, including starting a new line of service. We believe the
statute clearly contemplates this will be delivered as a Post-Request
Notification. We further believe that providers should explain, in this
notification, the nature of the operational or technical limitations
that are preventing the provider from completing the line separation as
requested and any alternative options that would allow the survivor to
obtain a line separation. We also believe that covered providers should
be required to promptly notify survivors if a line separation request
is rejected for any other reason. We seek comment on what information
should be provided in rejection notifications, but at a minimum, we
believe that covered providers should deliver a clear and concise
notification that the request has been rejected with the basis for the
rejection and information about how the survivor can either correct any
issues, submit a new line separation request, or select alternative
options to obtain a line separation, if available. The Safe Connections
Act requires that covered providers deliver notifications regarding
operational and technical infeasibility at the time of the request or
for requests made using remote means, not later than two business days
after the covered provider receives the request. We tentatively
conclude that all rejection notifications should be delivered within
the same timeframe. We further tentatively conclude that, if feasible,
covered providers must deliver these notifications through the manner
of communication selected by the survivor immediately after the covered
provider receives the request. We seek comment on our proposed
approach.
61. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should require covered
providers to convey information to survivors regarding the service
options that may be available to them in a Post-
[[Page 15569]]
Request Notification, as a Concurrent Notice to Survivors, or both. We
also seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to
inform survivors that they can choose between keeping the devices
associated with both their line and the lines of individuals in their
care if they assume any payment obligations for those devices or
obtaining other devices to use with the services. If so, we believe
covered providers should be capable of explaining remaining financial
obligations for the devices and the costs and payment options for new
devices the covered provider offers. We also believe that, given the
sensitive and challenging circumstances survivors may be experiencing,
we should require covered providers to minimize their communications to
survivors and prohibit communications that are not directly related to
the line separation request, such as marketing and advertising
communications that are not related to assisting survivors with
understanding and selecting service options. Do commenters agree? Are
there other valid, but unrelated, reasons for which a provider may need
to contact the survivor?
62. Notification to Primary Account Holders and Abusers. The Safe
Connections Act contemplates that primary account holders may be
notified regarding successful line separations on their accounts, and
we believe this notification is likely necessary in most instances,
given associated account changes that will occur, including when the
abuser is the primary account holder. We tentatively conclude that an
abuser who is not the primary account holder must not be notified when
the lines of a survivor and individuals in the care of the survivor are
separated from a shared mobile service contract. At the same time, we
believe it is likely the abuser must necessarily be notified, even if
not the primary account holder, when the abuser's line is separated. We
seek comment on our analysis here, and specifically on how we can best
ensure that survivors are protected in instances when primary account
holders and abusers whose lines are being separated must be informed
about line separations. If a covered provider needs to notify a primary
account holder or abuser whose lines will be separated, should we
require them to set a uniform amount of time after receiving a line
separation request in which they will provide the notice? Is it
feasible to require covered providers to wait until they have approved
and processed a line separation before informing primary account
holders or abusers whose lines will be separated, or will covered
providers need to communicate with them before that point to implement
account changes? Will covered providers be able to process all
necessary account and service plan changes as needed if we implement
such delays? When necessary, how should primary account holders and
abusers whose lines are separated be notified of any account and
billing changes? Additionally, should we prescribe any particular
content of these notifications? Is there any language or terms
providers should avoid using when notifying primary account holders and
abusers whose lines are separated?
63. Informing Survivors When Primary Account Holders and Abusers
Will Receive Notification of Separations. We propose to codify the Safe
Connections Act's requirement that covered providers inform survivors
who separate a line from a shared mobile contract but are not the
primary account holder of the date on which the covered provider
intends to give any formal notification to the primary account holder,
and also tentatively conclude that covered providers inform survivors
when the covered provider will inform the abuser of a line separation
involving the abuser's line. We seek comment on when covered providers
must inform the survivor of the date the covered provider will notify
the primary account holder and abuser (when the abuser's line is being
separated). How soon before the primary account holder and abuser
receive notification must the survivor be informed? Is there any
language or terms providers should avoid using when notifying
survivors?
5. Prohibited Practices in Connection With Line Separation Requests
64. Except as specifically provided, the Safe Connections Act
prohibits covered providers from making line separations contingent on:
(1) payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge; (2) maintaining
contractual or billing responsibility of a separated line with the
provider; (3) approval of separation by the primary account holder, if
the primary account holder is not the survivor; (4) a prohibition or
limitation, including payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge, on
number portability, provided such portability is technically feasible,
or a request to change phone numbers; (5) a prohibition or limitation
on the separation of lines as a result of arrears accrued by the
account; (6) an increase in the rate charged for the mobile service
plan of the primary account holder with respect to service on any
remaining line or lines; or (7) any other requirement or limitation not
specifically permitted by the Safe Connections Act. We propose to
codify these prohibitions and limitations in our rules, and seek
comment on our proposal, as well as implementation of these
prohibitions, as described below.
65. Fees, Penalties, and Other Charges. We believe that the Safe
Connections Act's prohibition on making line separations contingent on
payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge is unambiguous. We also
believe this clause would prohibit covered providers from enforcing any
contractual early termination fees that may be triggered by a line
separation request, if the line separation request was made pursuant to
section 345, regardless of whether a survivor continues to receive
service from the provider as part of a new arrangement upon a line
separation or completely ceases to receive service from the provider.
We seek comment on our proposed interpretation and any burdens it may
impose on covered providers.
66. Number Portability. We believe that the Safe Connections Act
effectively prohibits covered providers from conditioning a line
separation on the customer maintaining service with the provider,
provided that such portability is technically feasible, and that this
prohibition applies to any lines that remain on the original account
and any lines that are separated. We propose to interpret this
provision to mean that both the party that will remain associated with
the existing account and the party that will be associated with the
separated lines must be permitted to port their numbers at the time of
the line separation or after, without fees or penalties, provided such
portability is technically feasible. We seek comment on this view.
Below, we discuss further the contours of technical feasibility of
number porting within the confines of the Safe Connections Act.
67. Changing Phone Numbers. We seek comment on how best to
interpret the Safe Connections Act's provision that prevents a covered
provider from prohibiting or limiting a survivor's ability to request a
phone number change as part of a line separation request. We note that
as a general matter, survivors who are willing to change their phone
numbers can start a new account and obtain a new number without having
to go through the line separation process. Under what circumstances
might a survivor want to both secure a line separation and change phone
numbers, and are there any particular implications of those
circumstances that we should address?
[[Page 15570]]
For example, a survivor who is the primary account owner requesting
separation of an abuser's line from the account might want to keep the
account to maintain any promotional deals, complete device pay-off, or
avoid early termination fees, but change a telephone number for safety
reasons. We believe that this provision of the Safe Connections Act
would bar covered providers from prohibiting such telephone number
change requests or attaching a fee or penalty for doing so. We seek
comment on this analysis, and any other circumstances which we should
address.
68. Rate Increases. The Safe Connections Act prohibits covered
providers from making a line separation request contingent on an
increase in the rate charged for the mobile service plan of the primary
account holder with respect to service on any remaining lines, but also
provides that the prohibitions should not be construed ``to require a
covered provider to provide a rate plan for the primary account holder
that is not otherwise commercially available.'' To reconcile these two
provisions, we make several tentative conclusions and seek comment on
them. First, we believe the provision prohibiting covered providers
from making a line separation contingent on a rate increase means that
a covered provider cannot deny a survivor's line separation request if
the primary account holder for the remaining lines does not agree to a
rate increase. Second, we believe that provision also means that a
covered provider cannot force the remaining primary account holder to
switch to a service plan that has a higher rate, although the person
may elect to switch to a rate plan that has a higher or lower rate from
among those that are commercially available. Third, because the Safe
Connections Act does not require covered providers to offer rate plans
that are not otherwise commercially available, we believe covered
providers are not required to offer survivors or remaining parties a
specialized rate plan that is not commercially available if the party
does not choose to continue the existing rate plan. Are there other
ways to reconcile and interpret these two provisions? We do not read
the Safe Connections Act to restrict covered providers from offering
alternative rate plans to the party who remains associated with the
original account. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should
require covered providers to provide rate plan options during the line
separation process to the customer who remains associated with the
existing account.
69. Contractual and Billing Responsibilities. We seek comment on
the Safe Connections Act's prohibition on making a line separation
contingent on ``maintaining contractual or billing responsibility of a
separated line with the [covered] provider.'' Specifically, we believe
this prohibition means that the party with the separated line must have
the option to select any commercially available prepaid or non-
contractual service plans offered by the covered provider, whether that
party is a survivor or abuser. Likewise, we believe this prohibition
would also prohibit a covered provider from requiring a survivor who
separates a line from maintaining the same contract, including any
specified contract length or terms, as the account from which those
lines were separated (i.e., continuing a contract for the remainder of
the time on the original account for the new account or requiring the
survivor to maintain all previously-subscribed services (voice, text,
data) under the new account). We also believe this provision can be
interpreted as prohibiting covered providers from requiring that
separated lines remain with that covered provider's service. This is
consistent with our belief that the Safe Connections Act does not allow
covered providers to charge early termination fees to survivors. We
seek comment on these views.
70. Other Prohibited Restrictions and Limitations. Beyond the
issues discussed above, do the prohibited restrictions and limitations
in the Safe Connections Act contain any other ambiguities or raise
other implications for covered providers that we should address?
Additionally, although the Safe Connections Act includes a catch-all
provision that prohibits covered providers from making line separations
contingent on any other requirement or limitation not specifically
permitted by the Safe Connections Act, we seek comment on whether we
should specify any other requirements or limitations as prohibited in
our rules. For example, should we specify that a covered provider must
effectuate a SIM change sought in connection with a valid line
separation request even if the primary account holder has activated
account takeover protections for the account, such as a block on all
SIM changes? Does the catch-all provision give sufficient direction to
covered providers on what else is prohibited?
71. Provider Terms and Conditions. Given the general prohibition on
restrictions and limitations for line separation requests, we seek
comment on whether covered providers can require customers involved in
line separations to comply with the general terms and conditions
associated with using a covered provider's services, so long as those
terms and conditions do not contain the enumerated prohibitions above
and do not otherwise hinder a survivor from obtaining a line
separation. If so, under what legal authority? Are there particular
restrictions in existing terms and conditions that could be used to
prevent line separations that we should explicitly prohibit in our
rules? Are there other ways that providers can use their terms and
conditions to hinder line separations? We note that this approach would
permit covered providers to suspend or terminate the services on the
existing and new accounts for violations of the provider's terms and
conditions at any time after the line separation is completed.
72. Credit Checks. We also seek comment on whether the Safe
Connections Act prohibits covered providers from making a line
separation contingent on the results of a credit check or other proof
of a party's ability to pay. We recognize that providers may currently
require individuals to complete credit checks or demonstrate ability to
pay to ensure that customers can meet their payment obligations for
services and devices. However, we acknowledged in the Notice of Inquiry
that some survivors may not be able to demonstrate their financial
stability as a result of their abusive situation and therefore may be
foreclosed from obtaining services--and the record supported this
finding.
73. Although the designated program may allow some survivors
experiencing financial hardship to obtain services without payment
issues, we are concerned about situations where a survivor does not
qualify for the designated program and also fails to meet the credit
standards deemed acceptable by providers. To account for these
circumstances, we tentatively conclude that we should specify in our
rules that covered providers cannot make line separations contingent on
the results of a credit check or other proof of a party's ability to
pay. Consistent with the approach we took in the ACP Order, we would
still permit covered providers to perform credit checks that are part
of their routine sign-up process for all customers so long as they do
not take the results of the credit check into account when determining
whether they can effectuate a line separation. We also tentatively
conclude that providers should be prohibited from relying on credit
check results to determine the service plans from which a survivor is
eligible to select and whether a survivor
[[Page 15571]]
can take on the financial responsibilities for devices associated with
lines used by the survivor or individuals in the care of the survivor.
We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on
whether covered providers can use credit check results to determine
which devices may be offered to a survivor for new purchases. We note
that if we allow covered providers to require parties to comply with
standard terms and conditions for services and devices, they would be
able to enforce suspensions, terminations, or other remedies against
customers for violating provisions described in those terms in
conditions, such as failure to meet payment obligations.
74. If commenters believe that we should instead specify that
covered providers should be permitted to rely on credit checks or other
proof of payment capabilities in any of the circumstances described
above, we ask commenters to describe how the Safe Connections Act
provides us with the legal authority to do so, given its prohibition on
making line separations contingent on ``any other limitation or
requirement listed under subsection (c)'' of the Safe Connections Act.
Additionally, if the Safe Connections Act permits covered providers to
make line separations contingent on the result of a credit check or
other proof of payment capabilities, should we require them to inform
customers who fail to meet the provider's standards of other options,
such as assistance through the designated program (if available),
prepaid plans the provider might offer, and the ability to switch to
another provider that may be able to accommodate the survivor? Are
these alternatives adequate to provide survivors with communications
services they need?
6. Financial Responsibilities and Account Billing Following Line
Separations
75. The Safe Connections Act sets out requirements for financial
responsibilities and account billing following line separations.
Specifically, unless otherwise ordered by a court, when a survivor
separates lines from a shared mobile service contract, the survivor
must assume any financial responsibilities, including monthly service
costs, for the transferred numbers beginning on the date when the lines
are transferred. Survivors are not obligated to assume financial
responsibility for mobile devices associated with those separated
lines, unless the survivor purchased the mobile devices, affirmatively
elects to maintain possession of the mobile devices, or is otherwise
ordered to by a court. When an abuser's line is separated from an
existing account, the survivor has no further financial
responsibilities for the services and mobile device associated with the
telephone number of that separated line. The statute also gives the
Commission authority to establish additional rules concerning financial
responsibilities and account billing following line separations. We
propose to codify the statutory requirements and seek comment on any
administrative challenges or other issues regarding billing and
financial responsibilities that may arise from line separations that we
should address.
76. We are particularly interested in learning how providers handle
account billing issues following line separations they may perform now
and whether the line separation requirements in the Safe Connections
Act present new administrative challenges. We note that the Safe
Connections Act requires covered providers to effectuate a line
separation no later than two business days after receiving the request,
meaning that account changes may need to occur in the middle of a
billing cycle. If the Safe Connections Act requirements are different
from providers' existing practices, how difficult would it be for
providers to change their practices to meet the requirements? Are there
particular challenges for smaller providers or those providers that may
not conduct their own billing?
77. We recognize that there may be unique challenges with
reassigning or separating contracts for device purchases. We believe
the Safe Connections Act makes clear that, as a general matter, the
individuals who purchased a device will maintain payment obligations
for that device following a line separation. As the Safe Connections
Act specifies, however, the survivor will take on the payment
obligations for any devices the survivor elects to keep following
separation of the survivor's line and the lines of those in the care of
the survivor. We also believe it is clear that when an abuser's line is
separated, the survivor is no longer responsible for the payment
obligation for the device associated with that line. We tentatively
conclude that if the abuser's line is separated and the abuser was the
purchaser of any devices associated with lines that will remain on the
account, the survivor can elect to keep those devices and take on the
payment obligations for them. We seek comment on these proposed
interpretations and the administrative challenges of implementing them.
Do providers have the ability to reassign device payment contracts from
one customer to another? We know anecdotally that some providers offer
multi-device payment contracts, and these contracts often involve
device discounts or associated service plan discounts. Some of the
above separation scenarios may require splitting the payment
obligations for devices that are on the same contract. Do providers
have the ability to do this, especially in cases where the plan is no
longer commercially available? How would they make adjustments to
device or service plan discounts? Aside from reassigning or splitting
contracts, does the Safe Connections Act allow covered providers to
require the parties who are financially responsible for devices
following separations to pay the full remaining balance of any devices
or sign up for a new device payment plan at the time of the separation,
or must they allow those parties to complete existing payment plans? We
are particularly interested if this is permitted under the Safe
Connections Act when it is the survivor taking on the payment
obligation. Additionally, how would providers manage device payments
when a line separation occurs midway through a billing cycle? Does the
Safe Connections Act require them to prorate the payments?
78. Finally, we seek comment on how covered providers can manage
previously-accrued arrears on an account following a line separation.
We tentatively conclude that the arrears should stay with the primary
account holder. For example, if the abuser's line is separated and the
abuser was the primary account holder, the arrears would be reassigned
to the abuser's new account. Similarly, if the survivor was the primary
account holder and separates the abuser's line, the arrears would stay
with the survivor's account. Conversely, if the survivor's line is
separated and the abuser was the primary account holder, the arrears
would stay with the abuser's account. Is this tentative conclusion
administrable by covered providers?
7. Provider Obligations Related to Processing Line Separation Requests
79. In this section we seek comment on several topics concerning
covered providers' obligations related to processing line separation
requests.
80. Number Porting. Because the Safe Connections Act preserves
survivors' ability to port their numbers in connection with line
separation requests, we seek comment on the technical feasibility of
such number ports. Generally, number portability
[[Page 15572]]
allows consumers to keep their telephone numbers when they change
carriers and remain in the same location. Under the Commission's
current rules, wireless carriers must port numbers to other wireless
carriers upon request without regard to proximity of the requesting
carrier's switch to the porting-out carrier's switch, and must port
numbers to wireline carriers within the number's originating rate
center. We believe these same number porting obligations apply for
lines that have been separated pursuant to section 345; we do not
believe that there is anything unique about number ports associated
with line separations that would make such ports more or less
technically feasible than under other circumstances. Accordingly, we
tentatively conclude that any ports that covered providers are
currently required to, and technically capable of, completing would be
technically feasible under the Safe Connections Act. We also
tentatively conclude that should the requirements or capabilities for
porting change in the future, any newly-feasible ports also will be
considered technically feasible when sought in connection with a line
separation. We seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusions.
81. We separately seek comment on the operational feasibility of
separating lines and porting numbers at the same time. Have providers
developed procedures to handle this already? If not, how burdensome
would it be to do so? Because customers typically initiate port
requests through a new provider, would it be feasible for survivors to
seek a line separation and number port at the same time? Currently,
customers seeking to port a telephone number to a new wireless provider
must provide the new provider with the telephone number, account
number, ZIP code, and any passcode on the account. Many wireless
providers also require customers to authenticate the port request
through a port-out PIN. Is it feasible for a survivor to have this
information to provide to a new carrier to request a port before a line
separation request has been effectuated and a new account established
for the survivor? If a survivor initiates a port request with a new
provider, would that request remain pending and then be processed as
soon as the line separation with the old provider is effectuated? Do we
need to modify our number porting rules to permit these processes? For
instance, because of the complexity of these port requests, would they
fall outside the timelines for processing simple port requests
established by the Commission and industry agreement? What additional
administrative and survivor confidentiality challenges may arise for
processing line separations and port requests if the survivor is also
seeking to qualify for the designated program with the new provider?
82. We also seek comment on steps we can take to prevent port-out
fraud. In the 2021 SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud NPRM, we asked if we
should require providers to authenticate customers through means other
than the information used to validate simple port requests, such as
through the use of a PIN established with their current provider,
before effectuating a port-out request, and several commenters replied
in the affirmative. Above, we ask if we should require covered
providers to allow survivors to select whether they intend to port
their numbers during the line separation process. If we do, should we
also require covered providers to require survivors to establish a PIN
or another authentication key used by the provider to process port-out
requests if the survivor indicates the intent to port-out numbers?
83. Compliance with CPNI Protections and Other Law Enforcement
Requirements. As discussed above, section 222 of the Communications Act
obligates telecommunications carriers to protect the privacy and
security of information about their customers to which they have access
as a result of their unique position as network operators. Section
222(a) requires carriers to protect the confidentiality of proprietary
information of and relating to their customers. Subject to certain
exceptions, section 222(c)(1) provides that a carrier may use,
disclose, or permit access to CPNI that it has received by virtue of
its provision of a telecommunications service only: (1) as required by
law; (2) with the customer's approval; or (3) in its provision of the
telecommunications service from which such information is derived or
its provision of services necessary to or used in the provision of such
telecommunications service. The Commission's rules implementing section
222 are designed to ensure that telecommunications carriers establish
effective safeguards to protect against unauthorized use or disclosure
of CPNI. Among other things, the rules require carriers to
appropriately authenticate customers seeking access to CPNI. Our CPNI
rules define a ``customer'' as ``a person or entity to which the
telecommunications carrier is currently providing service.'' Our rules
also require carriers to take reasonable measures to both discover and
protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI and to
notify customers immediately of certain account changes, including
whenever a customer's password, response to a carrier-designed back-up
means of authentication, online account, or address of record is
created or changed.
84. In light of the protections afforded to CPNI by section 222 and
our implementing rules, we seek comment on how we can design the line
separation rules to preserve those protections. In particular, we seek
to understand who is a ``customer'' under our rules with respect to
plans with multiple lines or users and whether the answer to that
question affects how CPNI on such accounts must be protected following
a line separation. For instance, if the abuser is the primary account
holder, and the abuser's line is separated from the existing account,
should the covered provider prevent the new primary account holder from
accessing any historical CPNI associated with the account? Should the
primary account holder's historical CPNI move with the separated user
to a new account? If a survivor who is not the primary account holder
separates the survivor's line from a shared mobile service contract,
should the historical CPNI from that line be moved over to the new
account? Do covered providers have the technical capability to complete
such moves? Are there other issues that may arise as a result of line
separations concerning the protection of CPNI? For example, our rules
require telecommunications carriers to notify customers ``immediately''
whenever a password, customer response to a back-up means of
authentication for lost or forgotten passwords, online account, or
address of record is created or changed. We tentatively conclude that
this rule should not apply in cases where the changes are made as a
result of a line separation request pursuant to section 345, as it
would run counter to the intentions of the Safe Connections Act. We
seek comment on our tentative conclusion.
85. Aside from CPNI, the Safe Connections Act requires us to
consider the effect of line separations and any rules we adopt on any
other legal or law enforcement requirements. We seek comment on what
other legal or law enforcement requirements may by impacted by line
separations or the rules and proposals we discuss in this NPRM and how
we can ensure our rules align with those requirements.
86. Other Issues Related to Processing Requests. We seek comment on
whether covered providers may face any other issues when processing
line separation requests. For instance, would covered providers face
administrative challenges
[[Page 15573]]
if multiple survivors on an account each seek line separations at the
same time? Are there any changes to processes that providers have to
make with respect to the North America Numbering Plan and Reassigned
Numbers Databases to comply with the Safe Connections Act's
requirements? Would there be any issues if survivors choose to cancel
their requests or submitted multiple requests in the same year? To what
extent are any issues raised unique to the Safe Connections Act's
requirements?
87. Provider Policies and Practices. Given the importance of line
separation to survivors seeking to distance themselves from their
abusers, we seek comment on the extent to which we should require
covered providers to establish policies and practices to ensure that
they process line separation requests effectively. At a minimum, we
tentatively conclude that all employees who may interact with a
survivor regarding a line separation must be trained on how to assist
them or on how to direct them to employees who have received such
training. What would be the burden on covered providers, particularly
small providers, for any potential requirements we may adopt?
88. We also seek comment on what measures covered providers can
take to detect and prevent fraud and abuse. Are there any particular
requirements we should establish in the rules we adopt? Should we
establish rules requiring covered providers to investigate and
remediate fraud and abuse in a timely manner? Should we require
providers to investigate cases where the primary account holder asserts
that a line separation was fraudulent? Should providers create a
process for primary account holders to report allegedly fraudulent line
separations, and what course of action should providers take in
response? What evidence is sufficient to show that a line separation
was fraudulent, given the risk that an abuser may attempt to reverse a
legitimate line separation by claiming it was fraudulent? How difficult
will it be for covered providers to reverse line separations they
discover were fraudulent?
89. Other Measures To Prevent Abusers from Controlling Survivors.
We are concerned that if a survivor's abuser becomes aware that the
survivor is seeking a line separation, the abuser may seek to prevent
the line separation or preemptively cancel the line of service. We seek
comment on steps covered providers can take to hinder those efforts.
For example, should we require covered providers to lock an account to
prevent all SIM changes, number ports, and line cancelations as soon as
possible and no more than 12 hours after receiving a line separation
request from a survivor, to prevent the abuser or other users from
removing the survivor's access to the line before the request is
processed? We also seek comment on whether we should require covered
providers to keep records of SIM changes, number ports, and line
cancelations and reverse or remediate any of those that were processed
shortly before receiving a valid line separation request for numbers in
the request, because the SIM change, number port, or cancelation could
have been an attempt by an abuser to prevent a line separation. Would
these requirements be technically and administratively feasible? If so,
how much time prior to the line separation request should a SIM change,
number port, or line cancelation be considered improper and subject to
this remediation? Additionally, we seek comment on how covered
providers should handle situations where an abuser contacts the covered
provider to attempt to stop or reverse a line separation, such as by
claiming the request is fraudulent. We tentatively conclude that
covered providers should complete or maintain line separations and make
a record of the complaint in the existing and new account in the event
further evidence shows that the request was in fact fraudulent. What
would be the burden on covered providers, particularly small providers,
for implementing any of these requirements? Finally, we seek comment on
what steps covered providers can take, if any, to remove or assist
survivors with removing any spyware that an abuser may have installed
on devices of the survivor or individuals in the survivor's care.
8. Implementation
90. Timeframe. We seek comment on the appropriate implementation
timeframe for the requirements we propose in this NPRM to implement the
new section 345. How long will covered providers need to implement the
necessary technical and programmatic changes to comply with the
requirements under section 345 and our proposed rules? What existing
processes do covered providers have in place that would enable
efficient implementation of our proposed rules? Are there challenges
unique to small covered providers that may require a longer
implementation period than larger covered providers? If so, how should
we define ``small'' covered provider for these purposes? What would be
an appropriate timeframe for small covered providers, balancing the
costs and burdens with implementing our proposed rules against the
critical public safety interests at stake for survivors?
91. Effective Date. The Safe Connections Act states that the line
separation requirements in the statute ``shall take effect 60 days
after the date on which the Federal Communications Commission adopts
the rules implementing'' those requirements, and we propose to make
final rules effective in accordance with that timeline. We note,
however, that some of the rules to be adopted pursuant to this NPRM may
require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to
becoming effective under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). While we
believe the PRA provisions for emergency processing may facilitate
harmonization of these statutory requirements, we seek comment on the
implications of the Safe Connections Act's effective date provision for
PRA review. Are there any steps we should take to preemptively address
potential inconsistencies between OMB approval of final rules and the
statutory effective date set forth in the Safe Connections Act?
92. Liability Protection. Under the Safe Connections Act, covered
providers and their officers, directors, employees, vendors and agents
are exempt from liability ``for any claims deriving from an action
taken or omission made with respect to compliance'' with the Safe
Connections Act and ``the rules adopted to implement'' the Safe
Connections Act. Congress made clear, however, that nothing in that
provision ``shall limit the authority of the Commission to enforce [the
Safe Connections Act] or any rules or regulations promulgated by the
Commission pursuant to [the Safe Connections Act].'' We seek comment on
how, if at all, our rules should account for these provisions.
93. Enforcement. We seek comment on issues related to enforcement
of the rules contemplated in this NPRM. Should the Commission adopt
rules governing the enforcement of the specific requirements, or should
the Commission employ the general enforcement mechanisms to impose
monetary penalties on noncompliant service providers set forth in
section 503 of the Communications Act, as well as in the Lifeline and
ACP rules? Is there alternative authority for enforcement, such as
derived from the Safe Connections Act, that we should consider? Given
the potentially serious safety issues that could result from a covered
provider's noncompliance with rules implementing the line separation
obligations, we seek comment on appropriate, specific penalties that
[[Page 15574]]
could be adopted to incentivize compliance with program requirements.
B. Ensuring the Privacy of Calls and Texts Messages to Domestic Abuse
Hotlines
94. The Safe Connections Act directs us to consider whether and how
to ``establish, and update on a monthly basis, a central database of
covered hotlines to be used by a covered provider or a wireline
provider of voice service'' and whether and how to ``require a covered
provider or a wireline provider of voice service to omit from consumer-
facing logs of calls or text messages any records of calls or text
messages to covered hotlines in [such a] central database, while
maintaining internal records of those calls and messages.'' Below, we
propose to establish such a central database, but we begin our
discussion of this provision of the statute by proposing to require
covered providers to omit calls or text messages to the relevant
hotlines and analyzing the scope of that obligation.
1. Creating an Obligation To Protect the Privacy of Calls and Text
Messages to Hotlines
95. We propose to adopt a requirement that covered providers and
wireline providers of voice service omit from consumer-facing logs of
calls or text messages any records of calls or text messages to covered
hotlines that appear in a central database, while maintaining internal
records of those calls and text messages. Congress has found that
``perpetrators of [sexual] violence and abuse . . . increasingly use
technological and communications tools to exercise control over,
monitor, and abuse their victims'' and that ``[s]afeguards within
communications services can serve a role in preventing abuse and
narrowing the digital divide experienced by survivors of abuse.'' As
discussed above, these findings are supported by, among other things,
field work with domestic violence survivors demonstrating the risk of
abusers' accessing domestic abuse survivors' digital footprint,
particularly call logs. The NVRDC observed in response to our Notice of
Inquiry how ``[c]all and text records to and from covered organizations
would likely tip off an abuser who is closely monitoring all
communications.'' We are concerned that survivors may be deterred by
the threat of an abuser using access to call and text logs to determine
whether the survivor is in the process of seeking help, seeking to
report, or seeking to flee, particularly given the desire for survivors
to maintain secrecy and privacy. We therefore tentatively conclude that
protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines as
described by the Safe Connections Act is in the public interest, and
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
96. The Safe Connections Act specifically requires the Commission
to consider certain matters when determining whether to adopt a
requirement for protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines. Specifically, section 5(b)(3)(B) of the Safe Connections Act
requires us to consider the technical feasibility of such a
requirement--that is, ``the ability of a covered provider or a wireline
provider of voice service to . . . identify logs that are consumer-
facing . . . and . . . omit certain consumer-facing logs, while
maintaining internal records of such calls and text messages,'' as well
as ``any other factors associated with the implementation of [such
requirements], including factors that may impact smaller providers.''
Section 5(b)(3)(B) also requires us to consider ``the ability of law
enforcement agencies or survivors to access a log of calls or text
messages in a criminal investigation or civil proceeding.''
97. Covered providers and wireline providers of voice service have
the ability to identify consumer-facing call and text logs. In fact,
many service providers openly promote the ability of consumers to
access such logs, and we believe these providers should be able to
identify, and withhold as necessary, the call and text log information.
We seek comment on this belief and whether there are any operational or
technical impediments to any covered providers or wireline providers of
voice service selectively omitting calls and text messages from certain
telephone numbers from call and text logs. We note that there is no
discussion of such concerns in the record in response to the Notice of
Inquiry and it would seem that whatever processes translate internal
service provider data (such as call records) to the web page or billing
output that consumers see can be programmed to also filter out certain
records. Indeed, neither of the two trade associations representing
substantially different segments of what would be covered providers
and/or providers of wireline voice service raise insurmountable issues
relating to selectively omitting calls and text messages from call and
text logs.
98. Further, records of calls and text messages do not appear to
exist solely in the form of call logs, but, rather, independent
records--that is, some processing must be applied to the records to
create call logs. As a result, we expect service providers should be
able to maintain log records of calls and text messages that they omit
from consumer-facing logs when such records are required for any
criminal or civil enforcement proceeding--or for any other reason. As a
safeguard, we propose to explicitly require service providers to
maintain the internal records of calls and text messages omitted from
consumer-facing logs. We seek comment on this approach.
99. We seek comment on our proposal and our consideration of the
matters described in section 5(b)(3)(B) of the Safe Connections Act.
Does the appearance of calls and text messages to hotlines in call and
text logs indeed pose a risk to survivors and also sometimes deter use
of hotlines? Is our tentative conclusion that it is possible for
covered providers and wireline providers of voice service to omit
certain call and text message records from consumer-facing logs while
maintaining such call and text message records for other purposes, such
as when a survivor or law enforcement needs access to them, correct?
How expensive would establishing and maintaining such a system be? What
level of effort would be required?
100. Do service providers using certain transmission technologies
(wireless versus wireline, time division multiplexing versus Voice over
internet Protocol, etc.) or of a certain size (such as smaller service
providers) face unique challenges that we should consider? Are these
concerns great enough to exempt certain service providers? We are
concerned that creating a patchwork of service providers subject to
requirements to protect the privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines may create confusion for survivors, who may not know if they
can rely on the privacy of their calls and text messages to hotlines.
Do commenters agree? If exemptions or extensions are necessary for some
providers, how can we mitigate these concerns? If commenters believe
that this can be done through service provider communications, we
request that such commenters propose how such communications could be
conducted in instances in which the survivor is not the primary account
holder.
101. Are there any matters and considerations unique to protecting
the privacy of text messages sent to hotlines? Due to the popularity of
text messaging, we believe it reasonable to assume that some survivors
seek to communicate with hotlines through such means, and we also
believe that any requirements should apply equally
[[Page 15575]]
to call and text logs. Several states, localities, and non-profits have
created text messaging hotlines that allow survivors to more discreetly
seek help in the event that making a phone call might jeopardize their
safety. While not all covered hotlines will provide text messaging
options for survivors of domestic violence, we believe that requiring
service providers to omit text messages to hotlines from text logs will
help protect and save survivors. We seek comment on our proposed
analysis.
102. We also seek comment on whether we should establish exceptions
pertaining to particular calls or text messages. If we were to create
exceptions, how should survivors who may otherwise rely on the privacy
of all calls and text messages to hotlines be made aware that certain
calls and text messages may be disclosed in logs due to exceptions? How
often are toll calls or usage-fee-inducing mobile calls and text
messages made to hotlines? Are there any other potentially valid bases
for exceptions based on particular calls and text messages and, if so,
how should such exceptions be implemented?
2. Defining the Scope of the Obligation
103. How we define certain critical terms significantly affects
which service providers are subject to any obligation to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines, the extent of such
obligations, and to which hotlines the obligations apply. In addition
to seeking comment on defining the following terms, are there any other
terms that commenters believe we should define and, if so, how should
we define them?
104. Covered Provider. We propose to apply the obligation to
protect the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines to all
``covered provider(s),'' as defined in the Safe Connections Act.
Therefore, we propose to use the same definition of covered provider
used for the purpose of applying line separation obligations under
section 345 of the Communications Act, as added by the Safe Connections
Act. Do commenters agree that this is the appropriate definition? If
not, we invite commenters to suggest alternative definitions. If we
create exceptions or delayed implementation for smaller covered
providers, should this be reflected in our rules as an exception to the
definition of covered provider or in another manner?
105. Voice Service. In addition to covered providers, we propose to
apply the obligation to protect the privacy of calls and text messages
to hotlines to all ``wireline providers of voice service,'' as
suggested by the Safe Connections Act. We propose to base our
definition of ``voice service'' on the definition in section 5 of the
Safe Connections Act. That provision references section 4(a) of the
TRACED Act, which defines ``voice service'' as ``any service that is
interconnected with the public switched telephone network and that
furnishes voice communications to an end user using resources from the
North American Numbering Plan,'' including transmissions from facsimile
machines and computers and ``any service that requires internet
protocol-compatible customer premises equipment . . . and permits out-
bound calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way voice
over internet protocol.'' We note that the Commission has previously
interpreted that provision of the TRACED Act when implementing that
legislation's requirements and mirrored the definition established in
the legislation in the Commission's rules. We seek comment on this
proposal.
106. We tentatively conclude that we need not define the term
``wireline provider'' given what we consider to be its plain meaning
when used in conjunction with ``of voice service,'' as we propose to
define the latter term. Do commenters agree that the words ``wireline
provider'' are sufficiently unambiguous to not require definition? If
not, we request that such commenters suggest an appropriate definition.
If we create exceptions or delayed implementation for smaller wireline
providers of voice service, should this be reflected in our rules as an
exception to the definition of ``wireline provider of voice service,''
or in another manner?
107. Other Potential Service Providers to Include. We seek comment
on whether the public interest would be served by including providers
of voice service that offer service using fixed wireless and fixed
satellite service so that survivors have no doubt that when they call
or text covered hotlines, their calls will not appear in call or text
logs. Neither fixed wireless nor fixed satellite providers of voice
service appear to be ``covered providers'' or ``wireline providers of
voice service.'' The services that they provide are not Commercial
Mobile Radio Service or Private Mobile Radio Service because they do
not meet the definitions in the Communications Act, and, therefore,
providers of such services are not ``covered providers.'' Further,
neither of these services is a ``wireline'' service. Do commenters
agree that neither fixed wireless nor fixed satellite providers are
covered by the terms ``covered provider'' or ``wireline provider of
voice service'' in the Safe Connections Act? Do commenters support
including those types of providers in the obligation to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines? If so, under what
authority might the Commission impose such an obligation? Are there
unique burdens that imposing an obligation to protect the privacy of
calls and text messages to hotlines would impose on fixed wireless and
fixed satellite providers of voice service? If commenters support
including these types of providers, we request suggestions for how to
implement this broadened scope in our proposed rules. In addition, we
tentatively conclude that intermediate providers would not be
considered covered providers, consistent with the TRACED Act's
definition of ``voice service'' and seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. Do commenters believe there are additional types of
providers that we should include?
108. Call. The Safe Connections Act does not define the term
``call,'' nor is it defined in the Communications Act. We propose to
define a ``call'' as a voice service transmission, regardless of
whether such transmission is completed. We believe that given the
expansive definition of ``voice service,'' which we propose to define
without regard to whether it be wireline or wireless, such term
sufficiently captures the means by which survivors would use the public
switched telephone network to reach covered hotlines. Although we
suspect that only completed transmissions would appear on call logs,
out of an abundance of caution, we propose to include completed and
uncompleted transmissions in the definition of ``call.'' Do commenters
agree with our proposed definition? Are there any transmissions handled
by covered providers and providers of wireline voice service that we
should consider to be ``calls'' that would be excluded from this
definition?
109. Text Message. We propose to adopt the same definition of
``text message'' as given in the Safe Connections Act. Such term is
defined in the legislation as having the same meaning as in section
227(e)(8) of the Communications Act, which is ``a message consisting of
text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or
from a device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting
device by means of a 10-digit telephone number'' and includes short
message service (SMS) and multimedia message service (MMS) messages.
The definition explicitly excludes ``message[s] sent over an IP-enabled
messaging service to another user of the same messaging service'' that
do not otherwise meet the general
[[Page 15576]]
definition, as well as ``real-time, two-way voice or video
communication.'' When the Commission interpreted section 227(e)(8) for
purposes of implementation, it adopted a rule that mirrors the
statutory text. We believe that language is also appropriate for
purposes of Safe Connections Act implementation and propose to adopt
it. We seek comment on this proposal.
110. Covered Hotline. The Safe Connections Act defines the term
``covered hotline'' to mean ``a hotline related to domestic violence,
dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex trafficking, severe
forms of trafficking in persons, or any other similar act.'' We propose
to adopt this definition in our rules, but believe that we should
further clarify what constitutes a ``hotline'' and how much of the
counseling services and information provided on the ``hotline'' must
relate to ``domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, sex trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in persons, or
any other similar act[s]'' for the ``hotline'' to be a ``covered
hotline.''
111. As an initial matter, we tentatively conclude that in
providing these clarifications, we should strive to meet the broadest
reasonable expectations of a survivor seeking to place calls and send
text messages without fear that they will appear in logs. Do commenters
agree with this general approach to the definition of ``covered
hotline''? Are there any disadvantages to being more rather than less
inclusive in determining what is a ``covered hotline''? Are there any
entities that we should specifically exclude from our definition of
``covered hotlines''? Are there any factors we need to consider that
could lead us to conclude that the scope of ``covered hotlines'' should
be less exhaustive?
112. Turning to the specific definition, to be a ``covered
hotline,'' the service associated with the pertinent telephone number
must be a ``hotline,'' a term not defined in the Safe Connections Act.
Given the Safe Connections Act's definition of ``covered hotline,'' as
well as the potential use of a central database of ``covered hotlines''
(calls and text messages to which would be omitted from logs of calls
and texts), we believe it reasonable to interpret the term ``hotline''
generally to mean a telephone number on which counseling and
information pertaining to a particular topic or topics is provided. We
suspect, however, that certain telephone numbers may serve as
``hotlines'' and also be used for other purposes, such as the main
telephone number for the organization providing the counseling and/or
information service. Further, we tentatively conclude that telephone
numbers should not be excluded from being ``covered hotlines'' because
they do not serve exclusively as ``hotlines.'' Indeed, we believe that
we can best achieve the goal of minimizing hotline hesitancy by
interpreting ``hotline'' as broadly as possible, including telephone
numbers on which an organization provides anything more than a de
minimis amount of information and counseling and propose to use this
standard as a component in our definition of ``covered hotline.'' Do
commenters agree with this approach that we should not require that a
telephone number serve exclusively as a ``hotline''? Are there any
other considerations associated with an expansive definition of
``hotline'' that we should consider?
113. We tentatively conclude that a ``covered hotline'' need not
exclusively provide counseling and information to service domestic
violence survivors because such a requirement would be overly
restrictive and potentially exclude some hotlines that are providing
essential services to domestic violence survivors. Thus, at least
initially, we believe it is best to be as inclusive as possible and
define as a ``covered hotline'' any hotline that provides counseling
and information on topics described in the Safe Connections Act's
definition of ``covered hotline'' as more than a de minimis portion of
the hotlines' operations. Do commenters agree? Should we instead
establish a percentage of the organization's services that need to be
related to covered counseling for the hotline to be a covered hotline?
If so, what percentage?
114. Given the novelty of overseeing a central database of covered
hotlines, and to maximize the efficiency in resolving future matters of
interpretation under these provisions of the Safe Connections Act, we
also propose delegating to the Wireline Competition Bureau the task of
providing further clarification, as necessary, of the scope and
definition of ``covered hotline.'' We invite comment on this proposal.
115. Consumer-Facing Logs of Calls and Text Messages. The Safe
Connections Act does not define the term ``consumer-facing logs of
calls or text messages.'' In light of our goal of minimizing hotline
hesitancy by preventing abusers from being made aware of survivors'
calls and text messages to hotlines, we believe that we should define
the term as broadly as possible. We propose to define such logs as any
means by which a service provider presents to a consumer a listing of
telephone numbers to which calls or text messages were directed,
regardless of, for example, the medium used (such as by paper, online
listing, or electronic file), whether the calls were completed or the
text messages were successfully delivered, whether part of a bill or
otherwise, and whether requested by the consumer or otherwise provided.
In addition, our proposed definition includes oral disclosures (likely
through customer service representatives) and written disclosures by
service providers of individual call or text message records. For
avoidance of doubt, we propose to exclude from this definition any logs
of calls or text messages stored on consumers' wireless devices or
wireline telephones, such as recent calls stored in the mobile device's
phone app or lists of recently dialed numbers on cordless wireline
handsets. We seek comment on our proposed definition. Does it provide
sufficient specificity for service providers to implement our proposed
rules?
3. Creating and Maintaining the Central Database of Hotlines
116. The Safe Connections Act directs the Commission to begin a
rulemaking no later than 180 days after its enactment to consider
whether and how to establish a central database of hotlines related to
domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, human
trafficking, and other related crimes that could be updated monthly and
used by a mobile service provider or a wireline provider of voice
service to omit the records of calls or text messages to such hotlines
from consumer-facing logs of calls or text messages. We satisfy this
obligation by seeking comment here on whether and how to establish such
a central database of covered hotlines. We propose to establish a
central database of covered hotlines that would be updated monthly. We
believe that a central database would provide certainty as to which
records are to be suppressed, thus fulfilling the Safe Connections
Act's objective to protect survivors while making clear service
providers' compliance obligations. We seek comment on this proposal and
ask, as a general matter, whether commenters agree that we should
establish a central database as part of our efforts to protect the
privacy of calls and text messages to covered hotlines. Are there any
reasons not to create a central database of covered hotlines? Are there
any current lists or existing repositories of hotlines maintained by
national organizations seeking to end domestic violence that
[[Page 15577]]
could provide the foundation for such a database?
117. We next explore the issue of who should administer this
database. Should the Commission? Alternatively, should a third party
serve as the central database administrator (in which case all policy
decisions would continue to be made by the Commission)? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of each option? If we were to use a third
party as the database administrator, how should it be selected? Are
there any special requirements that the Commission should seek in a
database administrator? What entities have the expertise needed to be
the administrator of such a database? Do commenters have any
suggestions for the particular manner in which the Commission would
oversee the administrator of the database?
118. We also seek comment on the scope of the database
administrator's role and responsibilities. Should the database
administrator be responsible not only for operating the central
database, but also for initially populating the central database? We
expect it would be more efficient to have a single entity populate the
database initially and also take responsibility for updating the
entries in the database periodically. If the database administrator
will not be responsible for initially populating the database, how
should the Commission establish and populate the system? How should the
initial set of covered hotlines be identified and information about
them collected for the central database? Would it be necessary to
create an entirely new database or would it be possible to expand or
modify an existing database? What role should operators of covered
hotlines play in ensuring their inclusion in the central database, as
well as the accuracy of their information? Should individual hotline
operators be permitted to list multiple numbers in the central
database? How should the Commission and the database administrator work
with hotline operators? Should the database administrator accept
submissions of hotlines from third parties, presumably followed by
verification with the hotline operator?
119. What steps should the Commission and database administrator
take to maximize the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the central
database both initially and after it is established? We believe one
significant step would be making certain fields of the central database
public. At present, we expect the central database to include the name
of the hotline, its telephone number, a contact name (and telephone
number), and an address. We propose to make publicly available the
names of the covered hotlines and their telephone numbers, as well as
any location information that a covered hotline may elect to make
available, such as any geographic area in which they concentrate their
efforts, but we invite commenters to address whether there are other
permissible disclosures of contact information under the Privacy Act
System of Record Notice (SORN) governing our use and disclosure of
contact information that should be restricted given the unique equities
here, to preserve that information as confidential. We believe that it
will substantially improve the accuracy of the list because the public,
including interested support organizations, will be able to inspect it
and report any invalid numbers and/or information listed. This will
have the additional benefit of allowing for a means by which a survivor
who is hesitant about calling a covered hotline can check the list to
determine whether the number they plan to call or text message will
indeed be omitted. Because a hotline needs its telephone number to be
public for the hotline to be effective, we envision few potential
disadvantages of making the central database of covered hotlines
public. Do commenters agree that we should make the central database
public in the manner discussed above? Are there further advantages? Are
there any significant disadvantages? If we do make the central database
of covered hotlines public, should we permit operators of hotlines to
include location information other than street address, such as city,
part of a state, state, etc., if they wish to do so? Are there any
other steps that can be taken to maximize the comprehensiveness and
accuracy of the central database both initially and after it is
established?
120. Once a potential covered hotline has been identified, what
process should be used for determining whether a hotline is a covered
hotline? Should we require a self-certification by the operator of the
hotline? Should the database administrator conduct additional research?
Should we require operators of hotlines to demonstrate or at least
certify that they meet the definition of a covered hotline? We invite
commenters to identify such considerations and also propose solutions.
121. Central Database Updates. The Safe Connections Act directs the
Commission to consider whether and how to ``. . . update on a monthly
basis, [the] central database of covered hotlines to be used by a
covered provider or a wireline provider of voice service.'' We propose
for the central database to be updated monthly to keep up with the
dynamic nature of support networks for survivors. Do commenters agree?
122. With regard to hotlines already in the central database, we
propose that it be the responsibility of the hotline operators to
notify the database administrator of any changes to their information,
including the telephone number for the hotline. Under our proposal, the
database administrator would also take update submissions from third
parties, subject to verification with the hotline operator. We further
propose that the database administrator should conduct an annual
outreach campaign to hotline operators requesting that they confirm the
accuracy of their current information. Should part of the updating
process include routine certifications and, if so, how frequently? Over
time, should organizations be automatically removed from the central
database if they do not recertify their applications? Do commenters
agree with these proposals regarding updating information already
contained in the central database?
123. We expect the process of adding additional hotlines to the
central database to be different from initially creating the database
because, for example, it may not be practical for the Commission to
issue a formal call for submissions to the database on a monthly basis.
How should new candidates for inclusion in the central database be
identified? Should the database administrator be tasked with performing
routine checks for new hotlines? Are there feasible means of doing so?
How often should this be done? We propose that the database
administrator routinely accept submissions of covered hotline
information both from their operators and third parties, the latter
subject to whatever verification process we may establish for the
initial creation of the central database. Do commenters agree with
these proposals? What other steps could the Commission and the database
administrator take to continue to monitor for potential additions to
the central database of covered hotlines?
124. Funding of the Central Database. Section 5(b)(3) of the Safe
Connections Act does not identify an appropriation to fund the
maintenance and operation of the central database. In light of this,
how should this central database be funded? Is there a legal basis to
use cost recovery from all telecommunications and interconnected VoIP
service providers using revenue or some other indicia, similar to the
Universal Service Fund and funding for the North
[[Page 15578]]
American Numbering Plan? What authority would the Commission rely upon
to use a cost recovery support mechanism for the central database? If a
cost recovery scheme based on revenue is considered, what revenue base
should be used? How often should assessments be made? Who should bill
and collect for such assessments and what process should we use to
select this entity? If the central database's creation and operations
are not funded through an assessment based on service provider revenue,
what alternative do commenters recommend? Commenters should address
whether any proposed funding scheme presents Miscellaneous Receipts Act
or Anti-Deficiency Act concerns? Does the Safe Connections Act
contemplate (and permit) the Commission to establish rules pertaining
to use of the database, but defer actual creation of the database until
we can request and receive specific funding? If so, should we, in fact,
defer actual creation of the database in such a manner? We seek comment
on how the database should be funded at initial implementation and on
an ongoing basis given the Safe Connections Act's requirement that this
database be updated monthly.
4. Using the Central Database of Hotlines
125. Under our proposal and consistent with the Safe Connections
Act, the central database of covered hotlines will serve as the source
of covered hotlines to which calls and text messages must be omitted
from consumer-facing logs. We seek comment on how the required use of
the central database should be operationalized in our rules.
126. As an initial matter, we propose that service providers be
responsible for downloading the central database themselves in light of
our proposal to make it public on a website to be maintained by the
database administrator. This version of the central database would
include only the organization name and telephone number(s) (omitting
addresses and contact information) and would be available in an easily
downloadable and widely used format, such as a delimited text file. We
tentatively conclude that the administrative burdens on service
providers under such a system would be minimal. We seek comment on this
proposal. If commenters disagree with our proposal to make the central
database publicly available, and, thus, downloadable by service
providers from a public website, we request proposals for how we should
control access to the central database.
127. We seek comment on an appropriate amount of time following
adoption of rules by which service providers should be required to
comply with the obligation to protect the privacy of calls and text
messages to hotlines. Should we factor in potential unique challenges
that certain providers (such as those using certain technologies or
those of a certain size) may face when establishing a compliance date?
Should the compliance deadline vary by the type of service provider,
such as by allowing smaller providers more time to comply? If so, how
should we determine the service providers that should be given more
time and how much more time should be provided? Are there any
disadvantages to providing certain service providers a later compliance
deadline, such as potentially creating confusion for survivors in not
knowing when their particular service provider will begin complying?
Are there ways to mitigate these concerns?
128. Should we establish a minimum frequency for service providers
to download updates to the central database? Section 5(b)(3)(D) of the
Safe Connections Act, which provides a safe harbor defense in court
actions if ``a covered provider updates its own databases to match the
central database not less frequently than once every 30 days,'' affect
our requirements in this regard? Should we establish 30 days as the
minimum frequency at which service providers must download updates?
Would downloaded central database updates be immediately implemented in
service provider systems? For example, do service providers expect to
need to test updates? If so, how should our rules account for this,
considering that survivors may expect updates to be implemented
relatively quickly? Should we establish a maximum period of time
between when the administrator makes an update available and when such
an update is implemented in service providers' systems?
129. What measures should we take to ensure and determine
compliance by service providers with any rules that we might adopt for
protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines? Should
we require regular certifications and, if so, how frequently? Should we
establish specific penalties for failure by service providers to comply
with any rules protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines? If so, what should they be? Are there any other aspects of a
compliance framework that we should establish?
130. Are there any potential inconsistencies between the rules that
we might adopt to ensure the privacy of calls and text messages to
hotlines and other Commission rules or state regulations? For example,
would omitting toll calls that incur separate charges from consumers'
bills conflict with our truth-in-billing rules? Are there any other
potential inconsistencies? Should we explicitly resolve them and, if
so, how? What role might disclaimers issued by service providers play?
131. We seek comment on the Commission's legal authority to adopt
rules to establish, and update on a monthly basis, a central database
of covered hotlines and to require covered providers and wireline
providers of voice service to omit from consumer-facing logs of calls
or text messages any records of calls or text messages to covered
hotlines that appear in such central database, while maintaining
internal records of those calls and messages. We tentatively conclude
that Congress directing the Commission to consider how to adopt rules
for these purposes inherently grants the Commission the legal authority
to adopt such rules. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
Further, we seek comment on other potential sources of legal authority
for the adoption of such rules, such as Title I (via ancillary
authority) and section 201(b) of the Communications Act, perhaps in
conjunction with the Commission's purpose under section 1 of the
Communications Act to promote ``safety of life'' and Title III
(sections 301, 303, 307, 309, or 316).
132. Are there any other issues that commenters believe we should
consider with regard to section 5(b)(3) of the Safe Connections Act? We
invite commenters to identify and comment on any other issues relating
to a service provider's ability and obligation to protect the privacy
of calls and text messages to hotlines, the scope of such obligations,
creating and maintaining the central database of hotlines, and how
service providers should be obligated to use such central database.
C. Emergency Communications Support for Survivors
1. The Designated Program for Emergency Communications Support
133. The Safe Connections Act requires the Commission to designate
either the Lifeline program or the Affordable Connectivity Program
(ACP) to provide emergency communications support to qualifying
survivors suffering from financial hardship, regardless of whether the
survivor might otherwise meet the designated program's eligibility
requirements. While
[[Page 15579]]
``emergency communications support'' is not defined by the Safe
Connections Act, we construe the Act's references to emergency
communications support to be the time-limited support offered to
survivors suffering financial hardship through the designated program.
The ACP provides funds for an affordable connectivity benefit
consisting of up to a $30 per month standard discount on the price of
broadband internet access services that participating providers supply
to eligible households and an enhanced discount of up to $75 for ACP
households residing on qualifying Tribal lands. The ACP benefit can be
applied to any internet service offering of a participating provider,
including bundles containing mobile voice, SMS, and broadband. The
Lifeline program is one of the Commission's long-standing Universal
Service Fund programs, providing a benefit of up to a base $9.25 per
month for a discount on the price of voice and broadband service
provided by eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs). Households
participating in Lifeline that reside on qualifying Tribal lands are
also eligible to receive an additional discount of up to $25.
134. We seek comment on which program, Lifeline or ACP, to
designate to provide emergency communications support to survivors in
accordance with the Safe Connections Act. The Lifeline program allows
participants to receive support for broadband service, bundled service,
or voice-only service. As with Lifeline, ACP offers support for
broadband and broadband service bundled with voice and/or text
messaging, but it does not offer the flexibility to apply the benefit
to voice-only service. While the ACP offers a greater reimbursement
amount for program participants receiving broadband or bundled service
we understand that offering support for a voice option is critical for
survivors, and the Safe Connections Act is particularly focused on the
ability of survivors to establish voice connections independent from
their abusers. Additionally, the ACP relies on an appropriated fund in
a definite amount, whereas the Lifeline program is funded by the
Universal Service Fund, which is a permanent indefinite appropriation.
What are the benefits and limitations of choosing Lifeline as the
designated program? What are the benefits and limitations of choosing
the ACP as the designated program? If we decide to designate the ACP to
provide emergency communications support, how should we handle the
potential wind-down of the program?
135. If the Commission selects Lifeline as the designated program,
to ensure the maximum financial assistance available to survivors, we
seek comment on whether we have authority under the Safe Connections
Act to allow qualifying survivors enrolled in Lifeline through this
pathway provided by the Safe Connections Act to use that enrollment in
Lifeline to also enroll in ACP. Just as with the Consolidated
Appropriations Act that established the Emergency Broadband Benefit
Program, the Infrastructure Act directs that a household qualifies for
ACP if it meets the qualification for participation in Lifeline. Under
the Commission's rules, households that are enrolled in Lifeline can
enroll in ACP without needing to complete an ACP application. However,
the ACP's statute ties qualification for the program to the specific
eligibility criteria of the Lifeline program. If Lifeline is the
designated program for survivors, should survivors who only have access
to the Lifeline program through their status under the Safe Connections
Act be permitted to use their Lifeline participation to also enroll in
the ACP? If we were to modify the eligibility requirements of the
Lifeline program to allow survivors to enter the program with a more
expansive set of criteria, would that address any concerns with the ACP
statute's requirements and allow survivors to participate in both
programs? If such survivors were permitted to participate in the ACP,
should their ACP participation also be limited to the six months
contemplated by the Safe Connections Act? What modifications to current
ACP enrollment processes for current Lifeline subscribers should we
consider if we implement this ACP enrollment pathway?
136. Additionally, we seek comment on ways that we might be able to
enhance the designated program to best serve survivors enrolling
pursuant to the Safe Connections Act. For instance, the Lifeline
program currently allows for base reimbursement of qualifying voice-
only plans up to $5.25 and qualifying broadband or bundled plans are
eligible to receive up to $9.25 in Lifeline support. Recognizing the
critical role that voice service plays in the lives of survivors, would
it be appropriate to allow providers serving qualifying survivors to
provide discounts of, and claim reimbursement for, up to $9.25, the
full Lifeline reimbursement, even for voice-only service plans? We note
that section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Safe Connections Act directs the
Commission to adopt rules that allow a survivor who is suffering from
financial hardship and meets the requirements of section 345(c)(1) to
enroll in the designated program as quickly as feasible and to
``participate in the designated program based on such qualifications
for not more than 6 months.'' We construe the directive to allow
relevant survivors to ``participate'' in the designated program to
mean, among other things, that those survivors can receive the full
subsidy currently available under the designated program for up to six
months. We seek comment on this view. If this were permitted, how
should USAC allow service providers to make such claims while ensuring
survivors' privacy? If we select Lifeline as the designated program,
how might the contribution factor be impacted by an increase in support
for voice-only service, even for a limited population, to ensure
sufficient support benefits for survivors through the Universal Service
Fund? We also note that the Safe Connections Act does not explicitly
discuss survivors' access to the designated program's enhanced benefit
for residents of Tribal lands. However, the enhanced benefit for Tribal
lands is an established component of the ``federal Lifeline support
amount'' and ``affordable connectivity benefit support amount'' as
established by the Commission's rules. Therefore, we tentatively
conclude that survivors who would otherwise be eligible for emergency
communications support under the Safe Connections Act and reside on
qualifying Tribal lands will also be able to receive the designated
program's enhanced Tribal benefit. What are the benefits or drawbacks
associated with allowing survivors to qualify for the Tribal enhanced
benefit?
137. Providers in the Lifeline program must be designated ETCs by
state regulatory agencies or, where a state declines this
responsibility, by the Commission. For the ACP, participating providers
are limited to providers of ``broadband internet access service''.
These requirements are more limiting than the broader definition of
``covered providers'' contemplated by the Safe Connections Act. While
Congress clearly instructed the Commission to designate either the
Lifeline program or ACP as the designated program, we seek comment on
the interplay between the limiting nature of the Lifeline program's ETC
requirement and the broader understanding of ``covered providers.'' We
also seek comment on the interplay between the Safe Connections Act's
definition of ``covered providers'' and
[[Page 15580]]
the definition of ``provider'' used in the ACP.
138. We seek comment on the impact of the designated program's
benefit as it pertains to survivors' access to devices following
completion of a line separation request. The Lifeline program does not
offer any reimbursement for devices, unlike the ACP, which offers
reimbursement for qualifying devices, but such devices are limited to
internet-connected laptops, desktops, and tablets. Does this
significantly impact the Lifeline program's or ACP's effectiveness for
survivors? We seek comment on the impact the one-time ACP connected
device discount may have for survivors, and in particular, those who
qualify to enroll in the designated program under the Safe Connections
Act. While the Commission has not adopted rules that offer device
reimbursement in the Lifeline program, we seek comment on the ways in
which devices are made available to enrolling Lifeline subscribers in
the marketplace. Aside from providers, is there a role for
organizations that work with survivors suffering financial hardship to
help distribute connected devices and mobile phones to those enrolling
in Lifeline as the designated program through the Safe Connections Act?
139. We also propose rules the Commission could adopt to implement
the emergency communications support provisions of the Safe Connections
Act without prejudice as to whether to designate either the Lifeline
program or ACP as the program to provide such support. In this regard,
we seek comment on both the amendments to Part 54 as they appear at the
end of this document (using the Lifeline program as an example), as
well as how such amendments could be adapted to the Commission's
existing ACP rules.
2. Defining Financial Hardship
140. The Safe Connections Act directs the Commission to allow
survivors suffering from financial hardship to enroll in the designated
program ``without regard to whether the survivor meets the otherwise
applicable eligibility requirements.'' We seek comment on how to
interpret this provision of the Safe Connections Act. We propose to
interpret this provision to mean that, if a person meets the criteria
of ``suffering from financial hardship'' and meets the requirements of
section 345(c)(1), then the person may enroll in the designated program
even if they do not meet the qualification requirements for the
designated program, whether Lifeline or the ACP. While the eligibility
requirements of Lifeline are established in the Commission's rules, the
eligibility criteria for the ACP are statutory. If we were to designate
the ACP to provide survivors with emergency communications support,
would we have to use the ACP's eligibility requirements in the
definition of financial hardship, or did Congress intend that the
survivor eligibility requirements in the Safe Connections Act supersede
the ACP's statutory eligibility requirements if the ACP were the
designated program? If Congress did not intend for the Commission to
define financial hardship more expansively than the ACP's statutory
eligibility requirements, then what meaning should the Commission
attribute to section 5(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Safe Connections Act?
141. We also seek comment on how we should interpret and
incorporate section 345(c)(1) of the Communications Act for purposes of
verifying eligibility for the designated program. The Safe Connections
Act states that a survivor seeking to participate in the designated
program must ``meet[ ] the requirements under'' the newly added
``section 345(c)(1),'' which details the process for a survivor
completing a line separation request. As a threshold matter, we
interpret the Safe Connections Act to limit access to ``emergency
communications support'' in the designated program to those survivors
that submit a completed line separation request. Is this interpretation
supported by the statute? If not, how should we interpret the language
in the Safe Connections Act referring to survivors who ``meet the
requirements under section 345(c)(1)''? While we believe that the Safe
Connections Act limits the opportunity for support to survivors that
have submitted a line separation request, can a survivor ``meet the
requirements under section 345(c)(1)'' if they can demonstrate that
they are a survivor of a covered act by producing certain
documentation?
142. The Safe Connections Act also requires that a survivor be
``suffering from financial hardship'' to obtain emergency
communications support from the designated program. For survivors who
leave abusive environments, experiencing financial instability is a
common occurrence as a result of increased expenses and economic
dependency on former partners. Given the common connection between
domestic violence and financial instability, we seek comment on whether
we should presume that survivors of domestic violence are suffering
from financial hardship and therefore accept documentation of domestic
violence as demonstrative of financial hardship. Does the Safe
Connections Act allow us to adopt such an approach? Would this
interpretation give sufficient meaning to the Safe Connections Act's
reference to ``financial hardship''? Alternatively, does the Safe
Connections Act require us to prescribe demonstration of actual, rather
than presumed, financial hardship for purposes of participation in the
designated program? Would it be more appropriate to establish criteria
allowing a survivor to demonstrate that their abuser had cut them off
from prior financial resources to substantiate financial hardship? If
so, what should we require to substantiate this claim when the
survivor's existing financial documentation may not otherwise
demonstrate financial hardship?
143. In response to our Notice of Inquiry, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center (EPIC) and other advocacy groups proposed that the
Commission allow survivors to self-certify financial hardship. They
suggest that because survivors who leave abusive situations often lack
access to financial documentation, the Commission should not require
survivors to submit any income-verifying documentation. This approach
would reduce the barriers of participation for survivors and help
survivors access the benefits of the designated program. We believe
that, under this approach, any waste, fraud, and abuse concerns could
be mitigated by the requirement that survivors also demonstrate that
they have met the requirements of section 345(c)(1) and the six-month
limitation on receiving emergency communications support. We seek
comment on this proposal to allow survivors to self-certify financial
hardship. What are the benefits and disadvantages of this approach? If
we adopted this approach, should we require survivors to submit an
affidavit, as suggested by the NVRDC, as part of the self-certification
of financial hardship status? Should any such affidavit or self-
certification be submitted under penalty of perjury? Would requiring an
affidavit be a barrier preventing survivors from accessing emergency
communications support? Should we require that any certification or
affidavit be notarized to ensure the veracity of the identity of the
signer, and what burdens would a notarization requirement impose on
survivors? Alternatively, would allowing trusted third parties such as
shelters or social workers to certify the financial hardship status of
survivors allow survivors to access emergency communication services
while mitigating any risk of
[[Page 15581]]
waste, fraud, or abuse? In contrast, would requiring a third-party
certification present a barrier to survivor participation in the
designated emergency communication support program, as EPIC argues? If
we allowed for other methods of demonstrating financial hardship beyond
income, what documentation should we require from survivors to explain
their financial hardship? How could we standardize the reviews of such
submissions to ensure that the Commission and USAC operate
consistently? Should we direct the Wireline Competition Bureau to work
with USAC to develop a standardized certification form, which would
clearly define financial hardship to survivors and other entities, for
any self-certification efforts? Does the fact that the emergency
communications support contemplated by the Safe Connections Act is
temporary reduce the risk of waste, fraud, or abuse connected with
survivor self-certification?
144. We also seek comment on whether we should allow survivors who
are facing temporary financial hardship to receive emergency
communications support. Some survivors who have reliable sources of
income nevertheless face financial instability or hardship as a result
of high temporary or short-term expenses associated with leaving an
abusive relationship. Survivors may need to pay expensive medical
bills, cover new housing and transportation costs, and find new
childcare arrangements, all of which can lead to financial instability.
If we allow survivors to qualify for emergency communications support
who are facing temporary financial hardship, how should we define
temporary financial hardship? Would showings of temporary financial
hardship have to be tied to the survivor's income at a particular point
in time, or are there other types of documentation that survivors could
submit to demonstrate temporary financial hardship? Are there benefit
programs that are available to survivors experiencing temporary
financial hardship, the participation in which we should accept as
qualifying a survivor to participate in the designated program? Does
the Safe Connections Act permit us to establish a process for survivors
who are experiencing temporary financial hardship to obtain emergency
communications support?
145. Alternatively, we could define financial hardship to mirror
the ACP eligibility requirements, which are broader than the Lifeline
eligibility requirements, even if we deem Lifeline the designated
program. This approach would allow many survivors who participate in
qualifying programs to have their eligibility automatically confirmed,
allowing them to ``enroll in the designated program as quickly as
feasible'' as required by the Safe Connections Act. Moreover, the more
expansive eligibility criteria for the ACP will provide additional ways
for survivors to demonstrate financial hardship, and will allow
providers and USAC to leverage existing connections and documentation
requirements to confirm eligibility. We seek comment on this approach.
What are the benefits associated with this approach? What are the
burdens or barriers that this approach might impose on survivors? Is
the income threshold of 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines used in
the ACP consistent with the Safe Connections Act's goal to allow
survivors to get emergency access to the designated program? Are there
federal or state benefit programs targeted to survivors whose
eligibility standards we could use as a model? Are there any other
qualifying benefit programs that we should consider including as part
of our definition of financial hardship, and in particular programs
targeted at survivors? Are there other approaches that we can use to
define financial hardship that are not directly tied to survivors'
income?
146. Both Lifeline and the ACP typically require subscribers to
demonstrate their eligibility by submitting either proof of income or
participation in a qualifying benefit program. The Lifeline program and
the ACP have similar approaches for consumers to document their income.
For instance, subscribers can demonstrate eligibility on the basis of
income by submitting documentation such as tax returns or pay-stubs. If
we were to keep a similar approach for survivors entering the
designated program, we seek comment on whether and what income
documentation we should require survivors to submit to demonstrate they
are experiencing financial hardship. Given the unique challenges faced
by many survivors in accessing financial information, should we require
survivors to submit documents to demonstrate financial hardship prior
to enrollment in the designated program, within a certain amount of
time after enrollment, or at all? If we adopted a delayed documentation
approach, should we permit service providers to claim reimbursement
before documentation is confirmed? Would a delayed documentation
approach limit service providers' willingness to provide support to
survivors if they were unable to claim reimbursement until survivor
documentation was approved? If we require survivors to submit
documentation to demonstrate financial hardship, what documentation
should we collect? Are there other types of income verifying documents
that we could allow survivors to submit beyond tax returns and pay
stubs?
3. Program Application and Enrollment
147. The Safe Connections Act also directs the Commission to allow
a survivor suffering from financial hardship to ``enroll in the
designated program as quickly as is feasible.'' We therefore seek
comment on ways in which we can improve (1) the application process for
survivors suffering from financial hardship that have successfully gone
through the line separation process; (2) the application process for
such survivors that were unable to obtain a line separation because of
some technical infeasibility; and (3) the application and enrollment
process for survivors generally. We also seek comment on how to best
approach enrollments for emergency communications support in the NLAD
opt-out states or through the ACP's alternative verification process
(AVP).
148. We first seek comment on the eligibility determination process
for survivors who have successfully completed the line separation
process. We propose that survivors should be able to submit
documentation of a successful line separation request to qualify for
the emergency communications support. Given the potential for variation
across service providers, we anticipate that USAC may need to engage in
reviews of information documenting a successful line separation
request. Is there a way in which the Commission and USAC can
standardize confirmation of line separation requests such that USAC
will be able to more quickly review such documentation and confirm that
a subscriber can participate in the designated program? Should the
service provider be required to provide to USAC certification or other
documentation confirming the successful line separation request? Would
confirmation of a line separation request alone be too ambiguous as
lines can be separated for reasons not contemplated by the Safe
Connections Act? Might there be ways in which USAC could confirm that a
line separation request was tied to an individual's status as a
survivor? If a survivor had a line separated by a service provider that
also participates in the designated program, would it be appropriate to
not require line
[[Page 15582]]
separation information from the survivor at the time of application and
instead rely upon the service provider to maintain that documentation
and share it with USAC as part of any program integrity or audit
inquiries?
149. The Safe Connections Act also requires the Commission to
consider how it might support survivors suffering from financial
hardship who attempted to complete a line separation request but were
unable to complete that request because of some technical
infeasibility. In such situations, should documentation of that outcome
be sufficient for a survivor to confirm their status as a survivor and
enroll in the designated program? How can USAC best assess the veracity
of these notices of technical infeasibility that survivors receive from
service providers? Are there ways in which the Commission or USAC can
work with service providers to standardize such notices? If the line
separation request was processed but confirmed unsuccessful, can it be
presumed that the survivor submitted all appropriate documentation to
the service provider to confirm their survivor status, or should USAC
require that documentation and independently review these materials?
Are there ways in which service providers might share confirmation of
unsuccessful line separation requests directly with USAC? After USAC
has confirmed that a line separation request was submitted but unable
to be completed because of a technical infeasibility, how might the
survivor be able to enter the designated program? Should the survivor
be able to receive the designated program's benefit on their existing
account, even if shared with an abuser? We presume that survivors
should be permitted to apply the designated program's benefit on any
new qualifying service not tied to the abuser, but does that present
any unique challenges for survivors and service providers?
150. As part of the process for applying to either Lifeline or the
ACP, consumers are required to submit information to USAC's National
Verifier that will allow for confirmation of the consumer's identity.
By gathering this information, USAC is better able to confirm the
identity of a consumer and prevent duplicate enrollments in the
Commission's affordability programs. We recognize, however, that
providing this type of identity information could be difficult for
survivors that may be trying to physically and financially distance
themselves from their abusers. As such, we seek comment on whether and
how we might gather similar identity information for the process of
verification while being sensitive to the privacy and safety needs of
survivors. Would the type of information that survivors need to provide
as part of the line separation process typically include all of the
information that the Commission already collects for its affordability
programs? Would this make providing the same information to USAC less
concerning for survivors suffering financial hardship, particularly if
such survivors will need to provide details of their line separation
request? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Information
Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), and applicable guidance,
the Commission and USAC already have strong privacy protections in
place for consumer information; are those measures sufficient for
information collected from survivors? Are there best practices that
governmental organizations and businesses use for dealing with survivor
information, which USAC should implement here, that go above and beyond
standard privacy protections? Are there ways in which we can modify the
information collected, perhaps by allowing a consumer to submit their
identity information with an alias name? If we allow survivors to
submit less identity information as part of their application to the
designated program, how might we effectively manage program integrity,
administration, and audit efforts?
151. Current address information can also be very sensitive
information for survivors to share. If such location information is
disclosed, it may allow an abuser to locate a survivor, and because of
this concern, survivors may not be residing at one location or have a
fixed address. They also may be hesitant to seek emergency
communications support if they believe their location may be disclosed.
To meet these challenges, we seek comment on how we might adjust the
address requirements for the designated program to best support
survivors suffering from financial hardship. Should USAC rely
exclusively on any address information provided as part of the line
separation documentation it might receive from survivors suffering
financial hardship? Might such address information be inaccurate if the
account, after the completion of a line separation request, is no
longer tied to a specific address? Our Lifeline rules already
contemplate temporary or duplicate addresses for applicants. Does this
approach sufficiently resolve the potential risks to survivors
suffering from financial hardship? Would it be appropriate to require
no address if the applicant can confirm their identity through
providing other personal information like their full actual name or
date of birth? Would it be appropriate to allow the address of a
survivor support organization or other alias address to stand in as an
applicant's residential address? Are these types of methods used in
other areas and for other services where survivors might seek support?
152. Aside from the issues detailed above, we also seek comment on
how the Commission and USAC should modify the designated program's
forms to allow survivors suffering from financial hardship to receive
support. As noted, we are interested in learning more about what
information service providers might have about survivors by virtue of
the line separation process and whether such information can be
provided to USAC directly from service providers. We are sensitive to
the possibility that survivors who would benefit most from
participation in the designated program may be experiencing sudden and
traumatic hardship, and we seek to make participation readily
accessible without compromising the integrity of our programs. Thus,
rather than requiring survivors to complete the designated program's
full application process and provide their line separation material,
would it be appropriate to require survivors to self-certify that they
completed a line separation request, regardless of the outcome, as part
of their application to participate in the designated program? If we
were to adopt such a self-certification approach, we anticipate the
need to require more identity information to confirm identity. Under
this self-certification approach, we also anticipate needing
information consistent with the Safe Connections Act to substantiate
that the applicant is a survivor. Would that be appropriate? If we did
not collect such information, how might the Commission and USAC confirm
that only survivors suffering from financial hardship are enrolling in
the program? Even if we do not adopt a self-certification approach for
confirming that the survivor went through the line separation process,
should we explore a more streamlined application for such survivors? If
so, what information that is currently collected might not be
appropriate for this community? Alternatively, are there questions or
information that should be added to the current program application
forms? Should such information be placed on a new supplemental form,
similar to the Lifeline program's Household Worksheet? Would it be more
[[Page 15583]]
appropriate to develop an entirely new application process for
survivors seeking to enter the designated program?
153. As part of the Lifeline and ACP enrollment process, consumers
are required to have their eligibility confirmed before they can be
enrolled into either program by a service provider. This is typically
done by the consumer either interacting directly with the National
Verifier or by working through a service provider system that confirms
information through an application programming interface (API)
connection to the National Verifier. After a consumer's qualification
has been confirmed, including confirmation that the consumer is not
already receiving the Lifeline or ACP benefit, then a service provider
can enroll the consumer in NLAD and begin providing discounted service
to that consumer. We do not intend to change this general process for
survivors suffering financial hardship and seeking to participate in
the designated program. However, we do seek comment on ways in which
USAC can communicate to survivors and service providers that a survivor
has been qualified to participate in the designated program. Should
USAC provide survivors with anything different from what is currently
provided to confirm qualification? Would it be preferable for USAC to
provide a qualification number that will confirm a survivor's ability
to participate in the designated program while also allowing them to
minimize the amount of personal information they need to provide to
their service provider? This approach might result in a qualification
number that would allow the service provider to enroll the subscriber
in NLAD without seeing the level of personal information that service
providers currently see in NLAD. Would such an approach be too
administratively burdensome for service providers to monitor and ensure
compliance with the designated program's rules? How else might USAC
work to categorize survivors in NLAD such that service providers will
be aware that a particular subscriber might not be able to participate
in the program longer than six months? Is such a categorization
necessary?
154. As stated above, we seek comment on whether the Lifeline
program or ACP should be the designated program for impacted survivors,
and we further propose that survivors seeking to enroll in the
designated program under the Safe Connection Act be qualified and
enrolled using USAC's application and eligibility confirmation process
throughout the country. In California, Texas, and Oregon, the state
administrators currently confirm Lifeline eligibility and take measures
to prevent duplicate enrollments. As such, consumers in these states
apply through the state program administrators for state and federal
Lifeline benefits. USAC partners with these states to ensure that their
processes are in accordance with the federal Lifeline program's
guidelines. Here, however, we propose that survivors in these states
apply to participate in Lifeline as the designated program, through
USAC's systems directly. USAC would confirm the eligibility of
survivors to participate in the program and would work to address any
potential duplicates. This would be similar to how broadband-only
Lifeline subscribers apply and enroll in California, where the National
Verifier stands in for the state administrator. By requiring USAC to
review such enrollments we will ensure a standardized process for
survivor documentation, greater flexibility to be responsive to
survivor needs, a centralized repository for any potential line
separation materials that might come from service providers, and a
unified process around potential customer transition efforts after the
end of the six-month period. In proposing to adopt this approach, we
would still permit those with system access to support survivors in the
application process through access to USAC's systems. Should we also
permit such access to be expanded to community-based organizations that
work with survivors? If we did expand access to USAC's systems beyond
what is currently permitted, should that access be limited in any
particular ways to protect the personal information of survivors and
other program participants? We seek comment on these proposals.
155. If the Commission were to choose the ACP as the designated
program, we propose that all survivor eligibility determinations should
be completed through the National Verifier. As discussed above with
Lifeline, we believe that this approach will improve the process for
survivors. As such, we propose that providers with approved AVPs would
be obligated to accept determinations from the National Verifier. This
would be limited to survivors seeking to enter the ACP as the
designated program and would not impact the general processes in place
for AVP enrollment beyond that group. We seek comment on this proposal.
156. General Program Requirements. The Lifeline program and the ACP
both have general requirements to which program participants and
service providers must adhere throughout their participation in the
programs. For instance, both programs are limited to one benefit per
household and both programs also allow a provider to claim
reimbursement only for subscribers who actually use their service. We
propose that the general rules and requirements of the designated
program will remain in effect for survivors and service providers
except to the extent that they are in conflict with the statutory and
regulatory requirements established specifically for the emergency
communications support. This would include such requirements as the
programs' non-usage de-enrollment requirements, record retention
requirements, and audit requirements. We note that we do not expect
annual recertification to be an issue because survivors must qualify
through the regular program processes to participate in the designated
program beyond their initial six-month period. Our proposal reflects
our understanding that the programs' rules were established to ensure
that the limited resources of each program go towards individuals that
genuinely need the service and will use the service, and that a number
of these rules, such as those that deal with enrollment representatives
and the payment of commissions, were adopted to address specific
program integrity concerns that we think will continue to be relevant
in the context of our efforts to offer emergency communications
support. As such, we do not believe it would be appropriate to modify
these types of requirements. However, we seek comment on this proposal
and are particularly interested in whether survivors would be
significantly and negatively impacted by the continuation of certain
generally applicable programmatic rules in our affordability programs.
157. While we propose to maintain the programs' rules largely in
place, we seek comment on how the programs' limit of one benefit per
household would interact with a definition of survivors that may
implicate individuals living in different households. If we adopt an
expansive definition to permit individuals to be caregivers to those
not in their own household, should we permit multiple enrollments,
including an enrollment for the caregiver's household and an enrollment
for the household of the individual against whom a covered act was
committed? What administrative challenges would exist with such an
approach? How might the Commission and USAC secure proof of the
[[Page 15584]]
relationship between individuals and protect the designated program
from waste, fraud, and abuse?
4. Additional Program Concerns
158. Survivor Transition and Outreach. The Safe Connections Act
allows qualifying survivors to participate in the designated program
only for six months. We propose to interpret this provision as allowing
a survivor's service provider to receive six monthly disbursements of
support from the designated program. Is this interpretation consistent
with the Safe Connections Act? Are there other ways in which we can
measure months when a consumer might be enrolling in the middle of a
month? If a survivor uses the program for six months and then needs to
use the program again several years later, could the designated program
provide an additional period of support, or does the Safe Connections
Act only permit six months of support over the lifetime of the
survivor? We propose that such repeated periods of support would be
permissible. To that end, should we require a certain period of time
between periods of support before a survivor that meets the
requirements of the Safe Connections Act would be able to re-enter the
designated program and receive emergency communications support? If so,
we seek comment on the appropriate length of time before a survivor
could re-enroll into the designated program based on the Safe
Connections Act. In such situations, we presume that a survivor could
not rely on their original line separation request and must undergo a
new line separation process. Would such a presumption be too limiting?
Would allowing survivors to rely on their original line separation
request circumvent the Safe Connections Act's six month participation
limitation?
159. We also anticipate that there may be situations where a
survivor suffering financial hardship seeks to receive service from
more than one service provider over the six-month time period or may
seek to receive support sporadically, such that the impacted survivor
may not have a single six-month time period of participation. We
believe that either approach is permitted by the Safe Connections Act
and seek comment on our understanding of our legal authority to permit
such fluctuations in how a survivor might interact with their service.
Should we place any limitations on survivors seeking to change their
service provider during a single six-month enrollment period? How might
such an approach operate if the designated program is the Lifeline
program? Would the approach differ if the designated program is the
ACP? In situations of sporadic enrollments over time, what new
material, if any, should we require from survivors to re-enter the
designated program? Would their original application be sufficient or
should survivors be required to submit new applications? Would
survivors be obligated to pursue new line separation requests, even
when they have not fully utilized six months of emergency
communications support? We also propose that USAC should be responsible
for monitoring participation in the program to ensure compliance with
the Safe Connections Act's time requirement. Through the NLAD, USAC can
monitor changes in service providers and calculate a survivor's length
of participation in the program. We seek comment on this proposal.
Would USAC need to collect any additional information, either from
service providers or participating survivors, to complete this work?
160. We also believe that USAC is best positioned to handle
transition efforts after the survivor has completed their six months in
the designated program. Survivors are able to participate in the
Commission's affordability programs indefinitely if they can satisfy
the programs' eligibility requirements, and the Safe Connections Act
specifically endorses survivors transitioning to the program beyond six
months if they meet the designated program's eligibility requirements.
We anticipate that USAC will have the appropriate contact information
for survivors participating in the designated program, and we propose
that USAC directly send outreach material to such survivors explaining
how they can meet the eligibility requirements of the Lifeline program
and the ACP and receive discounted service beyond their original six-
month emergency period. However, if we implement protections for
survivors allowing them to submit alias addresses or names as part of
the application process, how might that impact any transition efforts?
We propose that USAC send this material to participating survivors 60
days before the end of emergency communications support, and that such
outreach should include information about participating service
providers in the survivor's area. Participating survivors should be
free to change their service provider at this time if they choose.
Should the service provider also be allowed to communicate with the
survivor about their potentially ending benefits? What are the best
methods for a provider to contact a survivor? Through SMS-text
messages, voice calls, or app-based chat with the participant? At the
end of 60 days, if the survivor has not successfully confirmed their
eligibility to participate in the designated program beyond six months,
we propose that USAC should de-enroll the survivor from the program
within five business days of informing the service provider that the
subscriber is no longer eligible to receive emergency communications
support. We seek comment on this proposal and any potential challenges
that it might pose for survivors suffering from financial hardship or
service providers.
161. We also seek comment on how the support might operate if we
permit survivors suffering from temporary financial hardship to enter
the designated program. If a survivor asserts temporary financial
hardship and that financial hardship is resolved within six months,
would the Safe Connections Act require the survivor to be removed from
the designated program? How might we work to implement such an
approach? Should we require survivors to notify USAC of any resolution
of their financial hardship? Are there other methods by which USAC
might be able to learn of this change in circumstances? Would a
requirement for early removal once a financial hardship has been
resolved be too administratively burdensome for survivors and other
stakeholders?
162. Privacy Concerns. As discussed in the Notice of Inquiry and
throughout this NPRM, consumer privacy protections are always important
to the Commission and USAC. However, we recognize that these concerns
are heightened for survivors. The Safe Connections Act directs the
Commission to consider the confidentiality of survivor information. To
this end, we note that the systems that USAC uses to manage the
Lifeline program and the ACP collect only data elements that have been
prescribed by the Commission to allow for the effective management of
the programs and their protection against potential waste, fraud, and
abuse.
163. We seek comment, however, on any other steps the Commission
and USAC can take to ensure survivors' safety, while continuing to
preserve program integrity and customer service. Should the Commission
and USAC consider different approaches for subscriber data in NLAD and
the National Verifier than those already implemented? For instance,
would it be appropriate to mask certain subscriber data in USAC's
systems from service providers? With such an approach, what information
would service providers
[[Page 15585]]
need to know to provide the discounted service and claim subscribers
for reimbursement? We also note that USAC manages a call center for the
affordability programs to support program participants' enrollment,
recertification, and service needs. What processes could USAC put in
place to avoid the unintentional release of data to an individual who
is not a survivor but who may know some or all of the survivor's
personally identifiable information? We suspect that abusers may try to
exploit a call center to learn where a survivor might reside. We seek
comment on the frequency of this type of behavior, and whether there
are best practices to prevent such data leakage. How can USAC and the
Commission best inform survivors about potential opportunities for
lawful disclosure of information, such as disclosures that may be
necessary in response to litigation?
164. Our focus has been on the privacy concerns of survivors, but
we also seek comment on any privacy concerns that might arise for the
Commission when it comes to personal information associated with
alleged abusers. As we may be relying upon only allegations of abuse
what might the Commission do to protect the personal information, and
ensure the safety, of alleged abusers that may be disclosed in
connection with a survivor seeking emergency communications support?
What concerns are unique to alleged abusers that may not already be
addressed by our general privacy requirements? Are there specific
pieces of information more likely to inadvertently identify an abuser
than others?
165. Finally, we note that USAC regularly reports programmatic data
about both the Lifeline program and the ACP, often including aggregate
subscriber data that is sometimes broken down at the county, state, and
ZIP code levels. What considerations should the Commission and USAC
make when making similar subscriber enrollment information available?
Should the Commission filter out survivor enrollments from such
aggregate reports? What are the benefits and risks of reporting the
total number of survivors enrolled in the programs?
166. Program Evaluation. The Safe Connections Act requires the
Commission to complete an evaluation of the designated program two
years after the completion of this rulemaking. The evaluation is
specifically meant to examine the effectiveness of the support offered
to survivors suffering from financial hardship and to assess the
detection and elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse with respect to
the support offered. We seek comment on ways in which the Commission
can satisfy this requirement. What resources can the Commission rely
upon to solicit comprehensive program performance data? Are there ways
in which we can assess the impacts of the designated program's efforts
on survivors more broadly? Would surveying program participants be a
viable option for gaining data or might we expect minimal response
rates given survivors' privacy concerns? Would shelters and other
support programs be appropriate survey recipients, and would they have
responsive information to help the Commission understand the program's
effectiveness? Are there questions that we might be able to pose to
survivors at enrollment or during any potential transition periods that
might inform our understanding of the program's effectiveness?
Regarding an assessment of our efforts to combat waste, fraud, and
abuse, are there specific pieces of data that would be helpful to
receive from service providers unique to this population?
Alternatively, would USAC's regular program integrity and auditing
efforts yield enough information to develop an understanding of our
ability to protect program funding?
D. Savings Clause
167. Section 7 of the Safe Connections Act is a savings clause
providing that nothing in the Safe Connections Act abrogates, limits,
or otherwise affects the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
Act (CALEA), our regulations implementing the statute, or any
amendments to either the statute or our implementing regulations.
Despite the provision appearing to be self-effectuating, should we
nevertheless incorporate this savings clause into the rules that we
adopt in this proceeding? Are there any changes that we should make to
our proposed rules to account for operation of the clause that we do
not discuss above? For example, would the line separation process
affect service providers' ability to comply with CALEA requests
pertaining to any devices and telephone numbers associated with line
separations?
E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion
168. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.
II. Procedural Matters
169. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth below.
III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
170. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has
prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The
Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
171. In the NPRM, the Commission begins the process of implementing
the Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe Connections Act), enacted on
December 7, 2022. The legislation amends the Communications Act of 1934
(Communications Act) to require mobile service providers to separate
the line of a survivor of domestic violence (and other related crimes
and abuse), and any individuals in the care of the survivor, from a
mobile service contract shared with an abuser within two business
[[Page 15586]]
days after receiving a request from the survivor. The Safe Connections
Act also directs the Commission to issue rules, within 18 months of the
statute's enactment, implementing the line separation requirement. The
Safe Connections Act also requires the Commission to designate either
the Lifeline program or the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) as
the vehicle for providing survivors suffering financial hardship with
emergency communications support for up to six months. Further, the
legislation requires the Commission to open a rulemaking within 180
days of enactment to consider whether to, and how the Commission
should, establish a central database of domestic abuse hotlines to be
used by service providers and require such providers to omit, subject
to certain conditions, any records of calls or text messages to the
hotlines from consumer-facing call and text message logs. The Notice
proposes rules as directed by these three statutory requirements. We
believe that these measures will aid survivors who lack meaningful
support and communications options when establishing independence from
an abuser.
B. Legal Basis
172. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this NPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 254, 345, and 403, section 5(b) of the Safe Connections Act of
2022, Public Law 117-223, 136 Stat. 2280, and section 904 of Division
N, Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law
116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
173. 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. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. 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 Small Business
Administration (SBA).
174. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
175. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
176. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
177. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline
carriers or fixed local service providers.
178. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
179. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers
that reported they were fixed
[[Page 15587]]
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
180. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
181. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data
in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31,
2020, there were 151 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 131 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
182. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable
subscriber count established in a 2001 public notice. Based on industry
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of
cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note
however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system
operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.
183. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020,
there were 115 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 113 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
184. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
185. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
186. Wireless Broadband internet Access Service Providers (Wireless
ISPs
[[Page 15588]]
or WISPs). Providers of wireless broadband internet access service
include fixed and mobile wireless providers. The Commission defines a
WISP as ``[a] company that provides end-users with wireless access to
the internet[.]'' Wireless service that terminates at an end user
location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive
information from and/or send information to the internet at information
transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one
direction is classified as a broadband connection under the
Commission's rules. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a
size standard specifically applicable to Wireless Broadband internet
Access Service Providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA
small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA size standard for this industry classifies
a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry
that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees.
187. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access
services as of December 31, 2018, nationwide there were approximately
1,209 fixed wireless and 71 mobile wireless providers of connections
over 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission does not
collect data on the number of employees for providers of these
services, therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA's small
business size standard. However, based on data in the Commission's 2022
Communications Marketplace Report on the small number of large mobile
wireless nationwide and regional facilities-based providers, the dozens
of small regional facilities-based providers and the number of wireless
mobile virtual network providers in general, as well as on terrestrial
fixed wireless broadband providers in general, we believe that the
majority of wireless internet access service providers can be
considered small entities.
188. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 293
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 289
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
189. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 518
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 495
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
190. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
191. The NPRM seeks comment on proposed rules that would help
survivors separate service lines from accounts that include their
abusers, protect the privacy of calls made by survivors to domestic
abuse hotlines, and support survivors that pursue a line separation
request and face financial hardship through the Commission's
affordability programs. The proposed actions could potentially result
in additional equipment costs, new or modified recordkeeping,
reporting, or other compliance requirements for covered providers such
as facilities-based Mobile Network Operators, as well as resellers/
Mobile Virtual Network Operators. Among other things, the proposed
actions would require covered providers, within two business days of
receiving a completed request from a survivor, to (1) separate the line
of the survivor, and the line of any individual in the care of the
survivor, from a shared mobile service contract, or (2) separate the
line of the abuser from a shared mobile service contract. The NPRM
seeks comment as to the potential impact to small entities of the
proposed timeframe. Entities, especially small businesses, are
encouraged to quantify
[[Page 15589]]
the costs and benefits of any reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance
requirement that may be established in this proceeding.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
192. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives 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 and
reporting requirements under the rules for such 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 such small
entities.
193. The NPRM seeks comment on the particular impacts that the
proposed rules may have on small entities. Specifically, the NPRM seeks
comment throughout on the burdens of the proposed rules, and any
alternatives, on covered providers, including small providers. The NPRM
also seeks comment on an appropriate timeframe for covered providers to
implement the necessary technical and programmatic changes to comply
with the requirements under section 345 and our proposed rules, as well
as whether there are challenges unique to small covered providers that
may require a longer implementation period than larger covered
providers. Additionally, the NPRM seeks comment on the ways in which
program changes to either the Lifeline program or the ACP might impact
both consumers and service providers participating in either program.
Service providers participating in these programs may include small
providers. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether small service
providers should either be exempted or provided additional time to
implement the proposed obligation to omit from consumer-facing logs of
calls and text messages calls to and text messages delivered to a
central database of domestic abuse hotlines that the Commission
proposed to establish.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
194. None.
IV. Ordering Clauses
195. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
254, 345, and 403, section 5(b) of the Safe Connections Act of 2022,
Public Law 117-223, 136 Stat. 2280, and section 904 of Division N,
Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116-
260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, that this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
196. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 54
Internet telecommunications, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirement, Telephone.
47 CFR Part 64
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications
equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 54 and 64 as
follows:
PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE
0
1. The authority citation for part 54 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220,
229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, 1601-1609, and 1752, unless
otherwise noted; Public Law 117-223, sec. 5, 136 Stat 2280, 2285-88.
0
2. Amend Sec. 54.400 by adding paragraphs (q) through (s) to read as
follows:
Sec. 54.400 Terms and definitions.
* * * * *
(q) Survivor. ``Survivor'' shall have the definition as applied in
47 CFR 64.6400(q).
(r) Emergency Communications Support. ``Emergency communications
support'' means support received through the Lifeline program by
qualifying survivors pursuant to the Safe Connections Act of 2022,
Public Law 117-223.
(s) Financial Hardship. ``Financial hardship'' means that a
consumer has met the requirements of Sec. 54.1800(j)(1) through (6) of
subpart R of this part.
0
3. Amend Sec. 54.405 by adding paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 54.405 Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) De-enrollment from emergency communications support.
Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this section, upon determination by
the Administrator that a subscriber receiving emergency communications
support has exhausted the subscriber's six months of support and has
not been able to qualify to participate in the Lifeline program as
defined by Sec. 54.401 of this subpart, the Administrator must de-
enroll the subscriber from participation in that Lifeline program
within five business days. An eligible telecommunications carrier shall
not be eligible for Lifeline reimbursement for any de-enrolled
subscriber following the date of that subscriber's de-enrollment.
0
4. Add Sec. 54.424 to subpart E to read as follows:
Sec. 54.424 Emergency Communications Support for Survivors.
(a) Confirmation of subscriber eligibility. All eligible
telecommunications carriers must implement policies and procedures for
ensuring that subscribers receiving emergency communications support
from the Lifeline program are eligible to receive such support. An
eligible telecommunications carrier must not seek reimbursement for
providing Lifeline service to a subscriber, based on that subscriber's
eligibility to receive emergency communications support, unless the
carrier has received from the National Verifier:
(1) Notice that the prospective subscriber has submitted a line
separation request as set forth in 47 CFR 64.6401;
(2) Notice that the prospective subscriber has demonstrated or
self-certified to their financial hardship status as defined in Sec.
54.400(s); and
(3) A copy of the subscriber's certification that complies with the
requirements set forth in Sec. 54.410(d).
(4) An eligible telecommunications carrier must securely retain all
information and documentation
[[Page 15590]]
provided by the National Verifier consistent with Sec. 54.417.
(b) Emergency communications support amount. Emergency
communications support in the amount of up to $9.25 per month will be
made available, from the Lifeline program, to eligible
telecommunications carriers providing service to qualifying survivors.
An eligible telecommunications carrier must certify to the
Administrator that it will pass through the full amount of support to
the qualifying survivor and that it has received any non-federal
regulatory approvals necessary to implement the rate reduction.
(1) This base reimbursement can be applied to survivors receiving
service that meets either the minimum service standard for voice
service or broadband internet access service, as determined in
accordance with Sec. 54.408.
(2) Additional federal Lifeline support of up to $25 per month will
be made available to an eligible telecommunications carrier providing
emergency communications support to an eligible survivor resident of
Tribal lands, as defined in Sec. 54.400(e), to the extent that the
eligible telecommunications carrier certifies to the Administrator that
it will pass through the full Tribal lands support amount to the
qualifying eligible resident of Tribal lands and that it has received
any non-federal regulatory approvals necessary to implement the
required rate reduction.
(c) Emergency communications support duration. Qualified survivors
shall be eligible to receive emergency communications support for a
total of no more than six months. This limitation applies across all
eligible telecommunications carriers, and the Administrator will inform
eligible telecommunications carriers when participating survivors have
reached their limit in emergency communications support. Survivors that
have reached their emergency communications support limit may still
participate in the Commission's affordability programs if they can
satisfy the eligibility requirements of the program.
(d) Lifeline rules applicable. Other Lifeline rules in this subpart
not contradicted by provisions of this section shall remain in force to
manage the participation of survivors receiving emergency
communications support.
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
5. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 345, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless
otherwise noted; Public Law 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat.
348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-223, sec. 5, 136 Stat 2280, 2285-88.
0
6. Add subpart II, consisting of Sec. Sec. 64.6400 through 64.6404, to
read as follows:
Subpart II--Communications Service Protections for Victims of
Domestic and Other Violence
Sec. 64.6400 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a) Abuser. The term ``abuser'' means an individual who has
committed or allegedly committed a covered act, as defined in this
subpart, against (1) an individual who seeks relief under this subpart;
or (2) an individual in the care of an individual who seeks relief
under this subpart.
(b) Call. The term ``call'' means a voice service transmission,
regardless of whether such transmission is completed.
(c) Consumer-Facing Logs of Calls and Text Messages. The term
``consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages'' means any means by
which a covered service provider or wireline provider of voice service
presents a listing of telephone numbers to which calls or text messages
were directed, regardless of, for example, the medium used (such as by
paper, online listing, or electronic file), whether the call was
completed or the text message was delivered, whether part of a bill or
otherwise, and whether requested by the consumer or otherwise provided.
The term includes oral and written disclosures by covered service
providers and wireline providers of voice service of individual call
and text message records.
(d) Covered Act. ``Covered act'' means conduct that constitutes (1)
a crime described in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act
of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291(a)), including, but not limited to, domestic
violence, data violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking;
(2) an act or practice described in paragraph (11) or (12) of section
103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)
(relating to severe forms of trafficking in persons and sex
trafficking, respectively); or (3) an act under State law, Tribal law,
or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is similar to an offense
described in clause (1) or (2) of this paragraph. A criminal conviction
or any other determination of a court shall not be required for conduct
described in this paragraph to constitute a covered act.
(e) Covered hotline. The term ``covered hotline'' means a hotline
related to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, sex trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in persons, or
any other similar act. Such term includes any telephone number on which
more than a de minimis amount of counseling and/or information is
provided on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault,
stalking, sex trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in persons, or
any other similar acts.
(f) Covered provider. ``Covered provider'' means a provider of a
private mobile service or commercial mobile service, as those terms are
defined in 47 U.S.C. 332(d).
(g) Designated Program. ``Designated program'' refers to the
program designated by the Commission at 47 CFR 54.424 to provide
emergency communications support to survivors.
(h) Primary account holder. ``Primary account holder'' means an
individual who is a party to a mobile service contract with a covered
provider.
(i) Shared mobile service contract. ``Shared mobile service
contract'' means a mobile service contract for an account that includes
not less than two lines of service, and does not include enterprise
services offered by a covered provider.
(j) Survivor. ``Survivor'' means an individual who is not less than
18 years old and (1) against whom a covered act has been committed or
allegedly committed; or (2) who cares for another individual against
whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed (provided
that the individual providing care did not commit or allegedly commit
the covered act).
(k) Text message. The term ``text message'' has the meaning given
such term in section 227(e)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (47 U.S.C. 227(e)(8)).
(l) Voice service. The term ``voice service'' has the meaning given
such term in section 4(a) of the Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (47 U.S.C. 227b(a)).
Sec. 64.6401 Requests for Line Separations.
(a) A survivor seeking to separate a line from a shared mobile
service contract pursuant to this subpart shall submit to the covered
provider a line separation request requesting relief under section 345
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and this subpart that
identifies each line that should be separated. In the case of a
survivor seeking separation of the survivor's line
[[Page 15591]]
(and/or the lines of individuals in the care of the survivor), the line
separation request also must (1) state that the survivor is the user of
that specific line, and (2) include an affidavit setting forth that an
individual in the care of the survivor is the user of that specific
line and that the individual is in the care of the survivor.
(b) A survivor seeking to separate a line or lines from a shared
mobile service contract pursuant to this subpart must verify that an
individual who uses a line under the shared mobile service contract has
committed or allegedly committed a covered act against the survivor or
an individual in the survivor's care by providing:
(1) A copy of a signed affidavit from a licensed medical or mental
health care provider, licensed military medical or mental health care
provider, licensed social worker, victim services provider, or licensed
military victim services provider, or an employee of a court, acting
within the scope of that person's employment; or
(2) A copy of a police report, statements provided by police,
including military police, to magistrates or judges, charging
documents, protective or restraining orders, military protective
orders, or any other official record that documents the covered act.
(c) Notwithstanding 47 U.S.C. 222(c)(2), a covered provider; any
officer, director, or employee of a covered provider; and any vendor,
agent, or contractor of a covered provider that receives or processes
line separation requests with the survivor's consent or as needed to
effectuate the request, shall treat any information submitted by a
survivor under this subpart as confidential and securely dispose of the
information not later than 90 days after receiving the information. A
covered provider shall not be prohibited from maintaining a record that
verifies that a survivor fulfilled the conditions of a line separation
request under this subpart for longer than 90 days after receiving the
information so long as the covered provider also treats such records as
confidential and securely disposes of them.
(d) Nothing in this section shall affect any law or regulation of a
State providing communications protections for survivors (or any
similar category of individuals) that has less stringent requirements
for providing evidence of a covered act (or any similar category of
conduct) than this section.
Sec. 64.6402 Separation of Lines from Shared Mobile Service Contract.
(a) Except as described in paragraph (b) of this section, not later
than two businesses days after receiving a completed line separation
request from a survivor pursuant to Sec. 64.6401, a covered provider
shall, with respect to a shared mobile service contract under which the
survivor and the abuser each use a line:
(1) Separate the line of the survivor, and the line of any
individual in the care of the survivor, from the shared mobile service
contract; or
(2) Separate the line of the abuser from the shared mobile service
contract.
(b) If a covered provider cannot operationally or technically
effectuate a line separation request, the covered provider shall:
(1) Notify the survivor who submitted the request of that
infeasibility at the time of the request or, in the case of a survivor
who has submitted the request using remote means, not later than 2
business days after receiving the request; and
(2) Provide the survivor with information about other alternatives
to submitting a line separation request, including starting a new line
of service.
(c) A covered provider shall offer a survivor the ability to submit
a line separation request through secure remote means that are easily
navigable, provided that remote options are commercially available and
technically feasible.
(d) A covered provider shall notify a survivor seeking relief under
this subpart, in clear and accessible language, that the covered
provider may contact the survivor, or designated representative of the
survivor, to confirm the line separation, or if the covered provider is
unable to complete the line separation for any reason. A covered
provider shall provide this notification through remote means, provided
that remote means are commercially available and technically feasible.
(e) When completing a line separation request submitted by a
survivor through remote means, a covered provider shall allow the
survivor to elect in the manner in which a covered provider may:
(1) Contact the survivor, or designated representative of the
survivor, in response to the request, if necessary; or
(2) Notify the survivor, or designated representative of the
survivor, of the inability of the covered provider to complete the line
separation.
(f) A covered provider shall notify the survivor of the date on
which the covered provider intends to give any formal notice to the
primary account holder if a covered provider separates a line from a
shared mobile service contract under this section and the primary
account holder is not the survivor.
(g) A covered provider that receives a line separation request from
a survivor pursuant to this subpart shall inform the survivor of:
(1) The existence of the designated program;
(2) Who qualifies to participate in the designated program under 47
CFR 54.424; and
(3) How to participate in the designated program under 47 CFR
54.424.
(h) A covered provider may not make separation of a line from a
shared mobile service contract under paragraph (a) of this section
contingent on any limitation or requirement other than those described
in paragraphs (i) and (j) of this section, including, but not limited
to:
(1) Payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge;
(2) Maintaining contractual or billing responsibility of a
separated line with the provider;
(3) Approval of separation by the primary account holder, if the
primary account holder is not the survivor;
(4) A prohibition or limitation, including payment of a fee,
penalty, or other charge, on number portability, provided such
portability is technically feasible;
(5) A prohibition or limitation, including payment of a fee,
penalty, or other charge, on a request to change phone numbers;
(6) A prohibition or limitation on the separation of lines as a
result of arrears accrued by the account; or
(7) An increase in the rate charged for the mobile service plan of
the primary account holder with respect to service on any remaining
line or lines.
(i) Nothing in paragraph (h) of this section shall be construed to
require a covered provider to provide a rate plan for the primary
account holder that is not otherwise commercially available.
(j) Notwithstanding paragraph (g) of this section, beginning on the
date on which a covered provider transfers billing responsibilities for
and use of a telephone number or numbers to a survivor under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, the survivor shall assume financial
responsibility, including for monthly service costs, for the
transferred telephone number or numbers, unless ordered otherwise by a
court. Upon the transfer of a telephone number under paragraph (a)(2)
of this section to separate the line of the abuser from a shared mobile
service contract, the survivor shall have no further financial
responsibilities to the transferring covered provider for the
[[Page 15592]]
services provided by the transferring covered provider for the
telephone number or for any mobile device associated with the telephone
number.
(k) Notwithstanding paragraph (g) of this section, beginning on the
date on which a covered provider transfers billing responsibilities for
and rights to a telephone number or numbers to a survivor under
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the survivor shall not assume
financial responsibility for any mobile device associated with the
separated line, unless the survivor purchased the mobile device, or
affirmatively elects to maintain possession of the mobile device,
unless otherwise ordered by a court.
Sec. 64.6403 Notice of Line Separation Availability to Consumers.
A covered provider shall make information about the line separation
options and processes described in this subpart readily available to
consumers:
(a) On the website and mobile application of the provider;
(b) In physical stores; and
(c) In other forms of public-facing consumer communication.
Sec. 64.6404 Protection of the Privacy of Calls and Text Messages to
Covered Hotlines.
All covered providers and wireline providers of voice service
shall:
(a) Omit from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages any
records of calls or text messages to covered hotlines in the central
database established by the Commission.
(b) Maintain internal records of calls and text messages excluded
from call and text logs pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Be responsible for downloading the initial and subsequent
updates to the central database established by the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-04489 Filed 3-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
