Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence; Lifeline and Link Up Reform Modernization, 84406-84452 [2023-25835]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 84406-84452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25835]



[[Page 84405]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 232

December 5, 2023

Part II





 Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





47 CFR Parts 54 and 64





Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence; Lifeline and Link 
Up Reform Modernization; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 84406]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 54 and 64

[WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, 21-450; FCC 23-96, FR ID 183619]


Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence; Lifeline 
and Link Up Reform Modernization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
adopted a Report and Order implementing the Safe Connections Act of 
2022 (Safe Connections Act or SCA), taking significant steps to improve 
access to communications services for survivors of domestic abuse and 
related crimes. The Report and Order adopts rules to implement the line 
separation provisions in the Safe Connections Act that allow survivors 
to separate a mobile phone line from an abuser. To protect the privacy 
of calls and texts to hotlines, the Report and Order requires covered 
providers and wireline, fixed wireless, and fixed satellite providers 
of voice service to: 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; and maintain 
internal records of calls and text messages excluded from consumer-
facing logs of calls and text messages. The Report and Order also 
designates the Lifeline program to support emergency communications 
service for survivors that have pursued the line separation process and 
are experiencing financial hardship.

DATES: 
    Effective date: This rule is effective January 14, 2024.
    Compliance date: Compliance with the revisions to 47 CFR 54.403, 
54.405, 54.409, 54.410, 54.1800, and 64.2010 and the addition of 47 CFR 
54.424 and 64.6400 through 64.6407 is delayed indefinitely. The FCC 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
compliance date for those sections.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Office of 
the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Nicole Ongele, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or send an email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact 
Melissa Kirkel at [email protected] or 202-418-7958 or Nicholas 
Page at [email protected] or 202-418-2783. For additional 
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information 
collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to 
[email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-450, FCC 23-96, 
adopted on November 15, 2023, and released on November 16, 2023. The 
full text of the document is available on the Commission's website at 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-96A1.pdf. To request 
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 
braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.), send an 
email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 
Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
    Compliance with the rule changes adopted in the Report and Order, 
except for Sec.  64.6408, shall not be required until the later of: (i) 
six months after the effective date of the Report and Order; or (ii) 
after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completes review of any 
information collection requirements associated with the Report and 
Order that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act. With respect to covered providers, 
wireline providers of voice service, fixed wireless providers of voice 
service, and fixed satellite providers of voice service that are not 
small service providers, compliance with 47 CFR 64.6408(a) shall be 
required December 5, 2024. In the event the Wireline Competition Bureau 
has not released the database download file specification by April 5, 
2024, or in the event the Wireline Competition Bureau has not announced 
that the database administrator has made the initial database download 
file available for testing by October 7, 2024, the compliance deadline 
shall be extended consistent with the delay, and the Wireline 
Competition Bureau is delegated authority to revise 47 CFR 64.6408 
accordingly. With respect to small service providers that are covered 
providers or wireline providers of voice service, compliance with 47 
CFR 64.6408(a) shall be required June 5, 2025. In the event the 
Wireline Competition Bureau has not released the database download file 
specification by October 7, 2024, or in the event the Wireline 
Competition Bureau has not announced that the database administrator 
has made the initial database download file available for testing by 
April 7, 2025, the compliance deadline set forth in this paragraph 
shall be extended consistent with the delay, and the Wireline 
Competition Bureau is delegated authority to revise 47 CFR 64.6408 
accordingly.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains new or modified information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission 
might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    In the Report and Order, we adopt rules, pursuant to Congress's 
direction in the SCA, that have an impact on all covered providers, 
including covered providers that are small entities. We impose certain 
obligations regarding communications with consumers and survivors. We 
also establish a compliance date six months after the effective date of 
the Report and Order, finding that the countervailing public interest 
in ensuring survivors have access to line separations regardless of 
their provider outweighs an extended compliance deadline for small 
covered providers. Further, staggered compliance deadlines could cause 
confusion for consumers, and we believe that the SCA's operational and 
technical infeasibility provisions we codify in our rules will account 
for differences in the capabilities between large and small covered 
providers regarding information collection requirements. Regarding 
protecting the privacy of calls and texts to hotlines, we require 
covered providers and wireline providers of voice service, within 12 
months, subject to certain conditions that may extend this time, (1) 
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; and (2) maintain internal records of 
calls and text messages

[[Page 84407]]

excluded from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages. Covered 
providers and wireline providers of voice service that are small 
service providers are given 18 months, subject to certain conditions 
that may extend this time, to comply with the same obligations. We 
received comments requesting that smaller providers be afforded 24 
months to comply with such obligations. Recognizing that the SCA 
contains no language regarding specific timeframes with respect to this 
obligation, we found that granting smaller providers extra 
implementation time is appropriate, given that they may face more 
resource challenges than larger providers in complying with the new 
rules. We acknowledged that this 18-month period is less than the 
requested 24-month period, but we found that our 18-month compliance 
deadline for small providers properly balances the significance of the 
risks faced by domestic abuse survivors, and the benefits of them being 
able to call hotlines and seek help without fear of the abuser 
accessing their call records, with the implementation challenges faced 
by smaller providers. Third, regarding emergency communications support 
for survivors, we designate the Lifeline program as the program that 
will support emergency communications efforts for survivors with 
financial hardship. This will have an impact on eligible 
telecommunications carriers designated to provide Lifeline support, but 
we expect any new regulatory impacts to be minor and consistent with 
our existing rules. As the SCA has no definition for financial hardship 
we adopt a definition that is more expansive than the current Lifeline 
eligibility standards, and we adopt an approach for documenting that 
financial hardship that allows for self-certification. We also direct 
the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to prepare for a 
program evaluation of our efforts to provide emergency communications 
support to survivors. This evaluation will require surveys of relevant 
stakeholder groups that USAC will develop under the oversight of the 
Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics.
    The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and 
Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Discussion

A. Separation of Lines From Shared Mobile Service Contracts

    1. We adopt rules to codify and implement the line separation 
provisions in the Safe Connections Act of 2022, Public Law 117-223, 116 
Stat. 2280. Our rules largely track the statutory language, with key 
additions and clarifications to address privacy, account security, and 
fraud detection; operational or technical infeasibility; implementation 
timelines; and compliance with other laws.
1. Definitions
    2. In order to implement the SCA's line separation requirements, we 
adopt definitions for the terms listed in new section 345 of the 
Communications Act, as added by the SCA, including ``covered act,'' 
``survivor,'' ``abuser,'' ``covered provider,'' ``shared mobile 
services contract,'' and ``primary account holder.'' We discuss each 
definition below.
    3. Covered Act. As proposed in the ``Supporting Survivors of 
Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and 
Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program'' notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM), 88 FR 15558 (March 13, 2023) (Safe Connections 
NPRM), we 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.
    4. As we noted in the Safe Connections NPRM, this definition is 
identical to the statutory definition, except that we add the phrase 
``but not limited to'' in describing the crimes covered by the first 
clause. Although the SCA defines ``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. Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women 
Act of 1994 describes a number of additional crimes and abuses beyond 
those enumerated in the SCA's definition, 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. We find that the best reading of the definition of 
``covered act'' in the SCA 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 further find that the second 
clause of the definition of ``covered act'' in the SCA, 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.
    5. Consistent with the SCA, we conclude that a criminal conviction 
or any other determination of a court is not required for conduct to 
constitute a covered act. The SCA separately addresses the evidence 
needed to establish that a covered act has been committed or allegedly 
committed. We address those requirements below.
    6. Survivor. We track the statutory language and define 
``survivor'' as an individual who is not less than 18 years old and 
either (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). Although we share the concerns raised by Asian Pacific 
Institute on Gender-Based Violence (API-GBV) and the National Domestic 
Violence Hotline (NDVH) that emancipated minors would not be covered by 
the statutory definition because they are neither age 18 or older nor 
likely to be in the care of an individual age 18 or older, the term 
``survivor'' is unambiguously defined by the SCA to only include 
``individual[s] who [are] not less than 18 years old,'' and we do not 
believe that the SCA otherwise provides us with the authority to extend 
the scope of that definition. Regardless, we strongly encourage covered 
providers to treat legally emancipated minors as though they are 
survivors if they meet the SCA's criteria but for their age, and offer

[[Page 84408]]

them the full scope of protections under the SCA.
    7. As we observed in the Safe Connections NPRM, the statutory 
language describing a survivor as an individual ``who cares for another 
individual'' against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly 
committed is broad. We conclude that this phrase should be understood 
to encompass: (1) any individuals who are part of the same household, 
as defined in Sec.  54.400 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 
54.400(h)); (2) parents or guardians of minor children even if the 
parents and children live at different addresses; (3) those who care 
for another individual by valid court order or power of attorney; and 
(4) an individual who is the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a person 
over the age of 18 upon whom an individual is financially or physically 
dependent. The record generally supports a broad interpretation of the 
phrase ``who cares for,'' while noting the need to provide clear and 
certain guidance to providers. We disagree with the NDVH's assertion 
that our proposed interpretation would have prevented a person who does 
not live in the same household from claiming survivor status if a 
covered act were not directly committed against them, but we 
nonetheless make explicit that we interpret this provision to include 
those individuals who are the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a 
person over the age of 18 upon whom an individual is financially or 
physically dependent (e.g., a non-minor child financially dependent on 
his or her parents or guardians, but who no longer lives at the same 
address). We find that this interpretation appropriately balances the 
needs of survivors to have meaningful access to line separations and 
clarity for providers for administrability and fraud deterrence.
    8. We decline, however, to adopt NDVH's proposal to include 
emotional care within the meaning of ``care for'' as we find that doing 
so would be difficult to administer and could raise account security 
risks. The record does not evince any examples of laws or regulations 
in which the phrase ``cares for'' is used to connote emotional caring, 
and as such we have no basis for finding that Congress intended this 
provision to be interpreted to include such circumstances.
    9. We decline to mandate that covered providers establish a process 
for individuals age 18 or older who are considered in the care of 
another person to object to a line separation request made on their 
behalf. We agree with Verizon that an objection process could ``hinder 
a wireless provider's ability to timely effectuate [a line separation 
request] within the two-business day period, put the wireless provider 
in an untenable position of uncertainty as to whether an otherwise 
valid line separation request should move forward, or both.''
    10. Abuser. As proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM, we 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 
SCA. No commenters objected to our proposed definition. As we explained 
in the Safe Connections NPRM, 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 adopt this definition only for 
purposes of implementing the SCA.
    11. Covered Provider. Consistent with the SCA, we 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).'' No 
commenters objected to the Safe Connections NPRM's proposal to adopt 
such a definition. 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.'' We find that the line separation obligations apply 
to all providers of commercial mobile service or private mobile 
service, as the Commission might interpret and apply those definitions, 
regardless of the underlying technology used to provide the service 
(e.g., whether provided through land, mobile, or satellite stations).
    12. Consistent with the Commission's proposal, we conclude that 
covered providers include both facilities-based mobile network 
operators and resellers/mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). No 
commenters objected to this proposal, and several concurred. The record 
indicates that for some MVNOs, the underlying facilities-based provider 
may have control over some parts of, or all of, the systems and 
infrastructure necessary to effectuate line separations. Therefore, we 
find that to the extent that an MVNO relies upon an underlying 
facilities-based provider to effectuate line separations, the MVNO 
should fulfill its obligations under the SCA and our rules through its 
contractual relationship with the underlying facilities-based provider 
and may satisfy its obligations by utilizing the same procedures and 
processes the facilities-based provider makes available to its own 
customers. However, to the extent an MVNO controls any facilities or 
systems (for example, customer care or billing), the obligations 
imposed by the SCA fall entirely upon the MVNO and not the underlying 
facilities-based provider.
    13. Additionally, we conclude that the statutory definition of 
``covered provider'' includes a provider of mobile broadband-only or 
mobile text service that does not also offer mobile voice service, if 
such provider assigns a telephone number to a device. Because the SCA 
defines a ``covered provider'' to include any provider offering private 
mobile service or commercial mobile service, we conclude that providers 
offering data-only mobile service or text-only mobile services (i.e., 
no voice services) are ``covered providers.'' We therefore disagree 
with National Lifeline Association's suggestion that mobile broadband 
providers who do not offer mobile voice service should not be 
considered covered providers, as such providers are statutorily covered 
by the SCA as providers of private mobile service.
    14. Shared Mobile Service Contract. Consistent with the 
Commission's proposal in the Safe Connections NPRM, we 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, mirroring the 
definition set forth in the SCA, except that we interpret ``2 
consumers'' to mean ``two lines of service.'' As the Commission 
explained in the Safe Connections NPRM, ``[i]t 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.'' As a result of this contract structure, 
providers may not have information about any users other than the 
primary account holder and are therefore unlikely to be able to

[[Page 84409]]

determine whether an account is a shared mobile service contract (i.e., 
has two or more consumers). Our interpretation, however, resolves this 
issue without requiring providers to collect additional information 
about each user of a multi-line account, and the record supports our 
approach. CTIA--The Wireless Association (CTIA) commented that our 
definition ``will help enable program success because it generally 
aligns with providers' customer service and billing systems'' and that 
``adopting a definition focused on `lines of service' rather than 
`consumers' will avoid impediments to survivors' ability to obtain line 
separations,'' particularly when providers do not know the identity of 
each consumer associated with an account. Notably, there were no 
objections to this proposed definition in the record. Furthermore, we 
find that the operational language of the SCA supports our 
interpretation, as it requires providers to separate particular lines 
rather than particular consumers from shared mobile service contracts. 
Consistent with the tentative conclusion in the Safe Connections NPRM, 
we also find that ``shared mobile service contract'' includes both 
prepaid and post-paid mobile service contracts. This tentative 
conclusion was also unopposed and supported by CTIA.
    15. We also conclude that a ``line of service'' under a shared 
mobile service contract is one that is associated with a telephone 
number, even if that line of service does not include voice services, 
and includes all of the mobile services associated with that line under 
the shared mobile service contract, regardless of classification, 
including voice, text, and data services. There is nothing in the 
statutory text to suggest that Congress intended to permit survivors to 
separate only certain services associated with their line but not 
others. Each service--voice, text, or data--could play a vital role in 
addressing survivors' communications needs. For example, although a 
device may lack voice service or capability over commercial mobile 
radio service, if a phone number is associated with the device, a 
survivor may use the number with certain over-the-top (OTT) services to 
send and receive messages or make voice calls by utilizing Voice over 
internet Protocol (VoIP) technology using data services or data 
messaging services. Such OTT services may include, for example, 
applications like WhatsApp, Signal, Messenger, and Telegram. Permitting 
separation of such lines may help avoid complications that could arise 
from disassociating with an existing number for these services. Had 
Congress wanted to limit line separations to only those lines with 
voice service, it could have done so explicitly in the statutory text. 
Congress, however, noted that ``perpetrators of violence and abuse 
increasingly use technological and communications tools to exercise 
control over, monitor, and abuse their victims.'' Clearly, Congress 
recognized that abusers might try to exercise control over survivors 
not only by limiting access to or monitoring devices with voice 
services but also by controlling other technological and communications 
tools. Because Congress sought to promote ``reliable communications 
tools to maintain essential connections with family, social safety 
networks, employers, and support services,'' we see no reason to limit 
the definition of ``line of service'' to only those lines with voice 
service when so doing could impede a survivor's access to certain 
devices and hamper their ability to gain support and services they 
need.
    16. We disagree with Verizon's assertion that ``it is far from 
clear that Congress intended certain other devices,'' such as tablets 
with no mobile capability, which only ``nominally'' have a line 
associated with a customer account, to be covered by the SCA. Denying a 
survivor the ability to separate a line simply because it is 
``nominally'' associated with a device could allow an abuser to 
maintain control over or monitor the line and the device associated 
with line and inhibit a survivor's ability to break free from an 
abusive situation. For example, a survivor may want to separate a line 
for a device in order to protect his or her location information from 
an abuser with access to the shared mobile account information. Had 
Congress wanted to limit line separations in the manner Verizon 
suggests, Congress could have explicitly done so. However, Congress 
defined a shared mobile service contract as a mobile service contract 
that includes not less than two ``consumers''--it did not in any way 
cabin ``consumer'' to a particular type of mobile service. Therefore, 
rather than ``being far from clear,'' it would seem counter to 
congressional intent to disallow a survivor's line separation request 
because the line at issue is only ``nominally'' associated with a 
device.
    17. We also disagree with Verizon's assertion that covered 
providers are not statutorily required to (but may voluntarily) 
separate more than one line per survivor on the basis that Congress 
intended to limit separations to one line per survivor because ``the 
statute uses the term `line' in the singular, not plural.'' As an 
initial matter, we read the statutory language in subsection (b) as 
framing the process to address each discrete line separation request, 
which grammatically requires the use of ``line'' in the singular, and 
in no way limits the number of lines for which a survivor may seek 
separation. Furthermore, limiting a survivor to one line separation 
request could potentially allow an abuser to maintain control over or 
monitor the survivor's other lines (or devices connected to other 
lines) that remain on the shared contract. We believe this would be 
contrary to Congress's goals, particularly of helping survivors 
establish ``independent access to a wireless phone plan.'' We also 
believe that had Congress intended to allow only one line separation 
per survivor (and one line per each individual in the care of a 
survivor), it would have made this limitation clear in the text. For 
example, instead of using the term ``the line,'' Congress could have 
said that a provider must ``separate one line of the survivor, and one 
line of any individual in the care of the survivor.'' Alternatively, 
Congress could have expressly limited the number of separations by 
stating that ``a survivor is entitled to one line separation for the 
survivor and one line separation for each individual in the care of the 
survivor.'' Moreover, the statute uses the exact same term ``the line'' 
when discussing the separation of an abuser's line as it does when 
discussing the separation of a survivor's line. Accepting Verizon's 
statutory interpretation would mean that a survivor is limited to 
separating only one line of the abuser's from the shared account. We do 
not believe that Congress intended to limit a survivor's ability to 
completely remove an abuser from a shared mobile service contract when 
so doing would likely impair the survivor's ability to establish 
independent wireless communications and leave the abusive situation. 
For all these reasons, we disagree with Verizon's assertion and 
conclude that covered providers must separate multiple lines, when 
applicable.
    18. The SCA's definition of ``shared mobile service contract'' 
explicitly excludes ``enterprise services.'' Consistent with the 
Commission's proposal in the Safe Connections NPRM, we conclude that 
enterprise services are those products or services that are not 
ordinarily available to mass market customers and are primarily offered 
to entities to support and manage business operations, which may 
provide greater security, integration, support, or other features than 
are

[[Page 84410]]

ordinarily available to mass market customers, and excludes services 
marketed and sold on a standardized basis to residential customers and 
small businesses. Our conclusion is consistent with the Commission's 
past findings that mass market services are those that are generally 
``marketed and sold on a standardized basis to residential customers 
[and] small businesses'' whereas enterprise services are ``typically 
offered to larger organizations through customized or individually 
negotiated arrangements.''
    19. Although we appreciate industry concerns over fraud, we decline 
to create a presumption that wireless accounts listing a business 
entity as the primary account holder are ``enterprise'' accounts. We 
find the concerns of the NCTA--The internet & Television Association 
(NCTA) that business accounts will be greater targets for fraud without 
a presumption that all accounts with a business listed as the primary 
account holder are enterprise accounts or a presumption that any 
account for which a party has subscribed to a ``business wireless 
service'' is an enterprise account to be overstated. The SCA includes 
adequate safeguards against the type of potential enterprise account 
fraud raised by NCTA by requiring survivors to submit documentation 
along with a line separation request demonstrating that an ``abuser'' 
who uses a line under the shared mobile service contract has committed 
or allegedly committed a covered act against the survivor (i.e., the 
person requesting the line separation) and an affidavit that the 
survivor is the user of the specific line. In practical terms, we 
expect that it would be challenging for a bad actor to make this 
required showing where the account holder is a business, and not an 
individual, unless the abuser's name is also the business name on the 
account. We believe this required showing will minimize the potential 
for fraud on business accounts. As such, we decline to adopt the CTIA 
and NCTA suggested presumptions.
    20. Primary Account Holder. Finally, as proposed in the Safe 
Connections NPRM, we 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 SCA. While no commenters 
opposed this proposal, Verizon noted that ``accounts typically have one 
named account owner,'' and explained that ``the possibility that `more 
than a single individual [may be] a party to a mobile service contract' 
should not affect how the SCA is implemented in practice.''' As such, 
we see no need to depart from the statutory definition of primary 
account holder.
2. Submission of Line Separation Requests
    21. In this section, we adopt rules to clarify the requirements for 
submission of a line separation request under section 345 of the 
Communications Act. We largely codify the requirements set out in the 
SCA for how survivors submit line separation requests while adopting 
some measures that clarify those requirements pursuant to the SCA's 
command that we consider various factors when enacting regulations for 
the line separation requirement. In particular, the SCA requires the 
Commission to consider, among other things, privacy protections; 
account security and fraud detection; the requirements for remote 
submission of line separation requests, including submission of 
verification information; feasibility of remote options for small 
covered providers; compliance with customer proprietary network 
information (CPNI) requirements; and ensuring covered providers have 
the necessary account information to comply with the SCA and our rules. 
Our aim is to maximize survivors' ability to obtain line separations by 
ensuring that covered providers have clear direction on their 
obligations related to the submission of line separation requests. 
Specifically, we establish requirements regarding the information that 
survivors must submit to request a line separation and the options 
providers must give survivors when survivors are making a line 
separation request, taking into account flexibility for survivors 
wherever possible. We recognize that there may be some instances in 
which a survivor may wish to separate an abuser's line but is not able 
to identify the phone number of the abuser that is associated with the 
account. We expect that in these instances, covered providers will work 
with survivors to separate the lines of the survivor and those in the 
survivor's care from the account.
a. Information Required To Submit Line Separation Requests
    22. The rules we adopt concerning the information that survivors 
must submit to make a line separation request are closely aligned with 
the requirements set out in the SCA. Specifically, we require that a 
survivor's line separation request: (1) state that the survivor is 
requesting relief from the covered provider under section 345 of the 
Communications Act and our rules; (2) identify each line that should be 
separated using the phone number associated with the line; (3) 
regardless of which lines will be separated, identify which line(s) 
belong to the survivor and state that the survivor is the user of those 
lines; (4) when a survivor is seeking separation of the line(s) of any 
individual under the care of the survivor, include an affidavit setting 
forth that any such individual is in the care of the survivor and is 
the user of the specific line; (5) when a survivor is seeking 
separation of the abuser's line, state that the abuser is the user of 
that specific line; and (6) include documentation 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. We 
also require that a line separation request include the name of the 
survivor and the name of the abuser that is known to the survivor, 
which may assist covered providers' fraud detection efforts. While some 
commenters generally expressed that we should ensure the process for 
requesting line separations is not cumbersome, none specifically 
addressed our proposed approach. We find that these requirements are 
consistent with the statutory requirements set forth in the SCA and 
properly balance the needs of survivors and covered providers' interest 
in preventing fraudulent line separations.
    23. Affidavits Regarding an Individual in the Care of a Survivor. 
When a survivor is seeking a line separation for an individual in the 
care of a survivor, we require the survivor to submit an affidavit that 
is signed by the survivor and dated near the time of submission. We 
decline to adopt Verizon's suggestion, however, that we require such 
affidavits include the name of the individual being cared for, 
relationship of the survivor to the cared-for individual, or other 
information for fraud deterrence purposes. We conclude that requiring 
information about such individuals raises privacy concerns that are not 
outweighed by the potential fraud deterrence benefits, particularly 
given covered providers may not have this information documented in the 
shared mobile account in the first place. In addition, we agree with 
the New York City Mayor's Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based 
Violence (NYC ENDGBV) that there should not be a notarization 
requirement for affidavits, as such a requirement would be burdensome 
for survivors because they ``may not have access to a form of 
identification to verify their identity to a notary and may not have 
the resources

[[Page 84411]]

to find, travel to, or acquire a notary public.''
    24. Documentation Demonstrating Survivor Status. Consistent with 
the SCA, we require survivors seeking a line separation to submit 
documentation that verifies 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 (i.e., is an ``abuser''). To meet the requirement for 
demonstrating survivor status, survivors must submit one or more of the 
eligibility documents prescribed by the SCA: (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, 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 or Tribal police, to 
magistrates or judges, charging documents, protective or restraining 
orders, military protective orders, or any other official record that 
documents the covered act. The documentation provided should clearly 
indicate a known name for the abuser and the survivor, as well as 
include some kind of affirmative statement that constitutes an 
indication 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. No commenter opposed our establishment of such 
requirements. Consistent with the Commission's proposal, we also codify 
the proviso in the SCA stating that nothing in our rules implementing 
section 345(c) ``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,'' which was unopposed in the 
record.
    25. We interpret the phrase ``any other official record that 
documents a covered act'' to mean records from any governmental entity, 
including Tribal governments. We find that this is the best 
interpretation of this phrase because the documents listed preceding 
this phrase are records from government entities, and although they are 
specifically records from law enforcement entities, Congress did not 
limit the scope of the phrase by qualifying it with ``any other 
official law enforcement record that documents a covered act.'' We also 
find that this reading is most consistent with the goals of the SCA as 
it permits survivors to submit official records from other government 
entities not listed in the statute that might commonly assist 
survivors, such as child and family service agencies. No commenter 
urged us to interpret the phrase narrowly, and for the reasons 
discussed below, we decline to interpret this clause more broadly to 
allow survivors to submit self-certification of survivor status. We 
also decline to interpret the ``other official record'' phrase to 
include records of domestic violence services organizations, or medical 
or mental health records that describe treatment for injuries, without 
the need to obtain a signed affidavit from the provider, as the New 
York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence requests as 
the first clause of the SCA's documentation provision specifically 
requires that such records be accompanied by a signed affidavit from 
the care provider and we find there is no basis for interpreting the 
``other official record'' phrase to directly contradict that 
requirement.
    26. Although we are sympathetic to concerns raised in the record 
that some survivors may have difficulty securing the documents 
specified by the SCA to demonstrate survivor status, or doing so in a 
timely manner, we find that there is no valid basis for interpreting 
the statute to allow self-certification of survivor status. Several 
commenters urge us to permit self-certification, but none explain how 
the SCA provides the Commission with the authority to do so, or how 
doing so is consistent with congressional intent. On the contrary, we 
find that doing so would contradict congressional intent. As the 
Commission explained in the Safe Connections NPRM, when Congress 
adopted the SCA, it was not unaware that self-certification could be an 
option for survivors to demonstrate survivor status, as the Commission 
had sought comment on allowing self-certification in its Notice of 
Inquiry. We expect that Congress also likely knew of the option for 
survivors to self-certify their status given that a similar New York 
law already permitted it as an option. Congress nevertheless excluded 
self-certification from its detailed list of permissible documentation. 
Presumably recognizing that the documentation requirements it set were 
more stringent than those that already existed in New York, Congress 
included a savings clause in the statute that specifically preserves 
states' ability to adopt less stringent certification requirements in 
state laws or regulations. Although EPIC et al. cites this provision as 
a reason why the Commission should conclude that the list of permitted 
documentation is non-exhaustive and that self-certification should be 
permitted, it is precisely because the SCA sets out a list of permitted 
documentation and preserves states' rights to set less stringent 
requirements in separate state laws that we conclude the Commission is 
restricted in its ability to expand the scope of permitted 
documentation to include self-certification. We likewise conclude that 
self-certification does not fit into the phrase permitting survivors to 
submit ``any other official record that documents a covered act,'' 
given our conclusion that Congress intended that clause to be limited 
to records created by government entities. We also find that the best 
reading of ``official record'' is a ``record created by, received by, 
sanctioned by, or proceeding from an individual acting within their 
designated capacity,'' which would not include self-certification. For 
many of the reasons discussed in this paragraph, we also conclude that 
the SCA does not permit us to allow survivors to submit any other forms 
of documentation of survivor status besides those already discussed.
    27. Next, we do not require that such documentation be dated or 
that the date be within a certain time period before the survivor 
submits the line separation request. We agree with API-GBV that we 
should ``provide flexibility to allow people to disclose victimization 
or to apply for protections at their own pace, given the risks that 
survivors face as they plan for their safety.'' We also anticipate that 
many survivors may have sought assistance years before the effective 
date of the SCA and our implementing rules, and we do not want to deter 
those survivors from taking advantage of the new benefit that is 
available to them or require them to seek assistance again just for the 
purpose of having newer documentation created. We likewise do not 
require that the documentation show that the covered act occurred 
within a certain time period prior to the request. We are cognizant of 
how difficult it may be for survivors to seek assistance and expect 
there may be instances where a survivor reported a covered act years 
ago but has not done so again recently despite ongoing abuse.
    28. Assessing the Authenticity of Documentation. The record 
reflects broad agreement from stakeholders that we should not require 
covered providers to assess the authenticity of the documentation that 
survivors submit, and therefore we decline to adopt such a requirement. 
We find this approach is appropriate given concerns that many covered 
providers may not have the

[[Page 84412]]

expertise to accurately evaluate the authenticity of documentation and 
could mistakenly deny legitimate requests. We conclude, however, that 
the SCA does not prohibit covered providers from attempting to assess 
the authenticity of documentation and from denying line separation 
requests based on a reasonable belief the request is or may be 
fraudulent, and we therefore permit them to do so. Such authentication 
might include confirming the documentation is from an entity that 
actually exists, assessing whether the documentation has identifiers 
that demonstrate the documentation is actually a record of that entity, 
and comparing any identifying information in the documentation about 
the abuser and survivor with information in the covered provider's 
records to confirm that it matches. However, to protect survivor 
privacy, we prohibit covered providers from directly contacting 
entities that created any documentation to confirm its authenticity. To 
mediate concerns about the accuracy of covered providers' assessments, 
we emphasize that covered providers must first form a reasonable belief 
that a request is or may be fraudulent before denying the request, and 
urge covered providers to consider possible legitimate reasons for why 
submitted documentation may not pass a provider's standard 
authentication checks. For example, mismatched identifying information 
could result from a document's use of nicknames or other names that 
would not match providers' records. We find that allowing, but not 
requiring, a covered provider to attempt to authenticate submitted 
documentation balances the public interests of fraud prevention and 
ensuring survivors' ability to obtain legitimate line separations. 
Accordingly, we decline NYC ENDGBV's suggestion to altogether prohibit 
covered providers from attempting to authenticate documents submitted 
by survivors.
    29. Assessing the Veracity of Evidence of Survivor Status. We 
prohibit covered providers from assessing the veracity of the evidence 
of survivor status contained within the submitted documents, or relying 
on third parties to do so. We expect that, in most cases, survivors 
will not be in a position to control what information other entities 
include in the documentation to ensure it clearly establishes survivor 
status. Thus, allowing covered providers to evaluate the truthfulness 
of the information provided and potentially use it as a basis for 
denying requests could limit legitimate line separations. We also make 
clear that the prohibition on assessing the veracity of survivor status 
evidence means that covered providers may not contact survivors to 
interrogate them about their experience, which ``can be retraumatizing 
for survivors,'' particularly since ``providers are likely not trained 
in trauma-informed engagement.'' The record affirms our belief that 
many covered providers may not have the expertise to accurately 
evaluate the veracity of the documentation survivors submit. We find 
that it would undermine the goals of the SCA if a covered provider 
denied a line separation based on an incorrect determination about the 
veracity of the evidence presented. We agree with Verizon and CTIA that 
the SCA's liability limitation clause provides protections for covered 
providers if they reasonably rely on the documentation survivors 
provide to demonstrate survivor status and approve line separation 
requests that turn out to be fraudulent.
    30. Other Information. We do not, at this time, require a survivor 
who is not the primary account holder to submit other information, 
including passwords, about the account or the primary account holder, 
as the record does not show that such additional information is needed 
to address fraud and could be unnecessarily burdensome for survivors. 
No commenter advocated that we require such information. Rather, 
consistent with the concern raised in the Safe Connections NPRM, 
Verizon noted that ``survivors may have little if any visibility into 
account information such as PINs, billing addresses, and primary 
numbers that an abuser may keep private.'' We do, however, permit a 
covered provider to request the account number, primary phone number, 
full or partial address, and PIN or password associated with the 
account, as long as the covered provider makes clear to the survivor 
that such information is not required to process the line separation 
request and that the request will not be denied if the information is 
not provided or is inaccurate. We acknowledge Verizon's assertion that 
such information, if available, ``could help a provider to process the 
[line separation request] more quickly in some cases, and to 
investigate and remedy transactions that later turn out to have been 
fraudulent or unauthorized.''
    31. Assistance with Completing Line Separation Requests. To 
maximize survivors' ability to pursue line separation requests, we 
conclude that survivors may rely on assistance from other individuals, 
including the survivor's designated representative, to prepare and 
submit line separation requests. We agree with commenters that this 
approach maximizes survivor self-determination and agency, and that it 
could be particularly useful for individuals with disabilities or whose 
first language is not English. No commenter opposed this approach. 
While the SCA requires covered providers to effectuate line separations 
after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, it 
also permits survivors to indicate a designated representative for 
communications regarding line separation requests, which we find 
signifies Congress's expectation that survivors might rely on other 
individuals in relation to line separation requests. To ensure that 
covered providers have the means to identify the individuals who 
survivors select to assist with line separation requests, we require 
providers to request the name and relationship to the survivor for 
individuals who assist survivors and we require those assisting 
survivors to provide that information, along with a statement that the 
person assisted the survivor with the line separation request. 
Providers may use methods that are reasonably designed to confirm the 
identity of the ``designated representative.'' We expect that any added 
cost for requiring covered providers to request this information will 
be negligible.
    32. Confidential Treatment and Secure Disposal of Personal 
Information. We adopt our proposal to require a covered provider, 
including any officer, director, and employee--as well as a covered 
provider's 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 the fact of the line separation 
request as well as any documentation or information a survivor submits 
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 SCA. The record supports adoption of 
this requirement, including our proposed clarification that a 
``vendor,'' as used in the SCA, includes a ``contractor'' who may 
receive a line separation request in its provision of services to a 
covered provider, on the basis that this interpretation reflects the 
business practices of covered providers and will mitigate privacy risks 
to survivors. We note that covered providers must abide by this 
requirement even if they are unable to process a line separation 
request.

[[Page 84413]]

    33. We conclude that treating the line separation request itself, 
as well as documentation and information a survivor submits as part of 
a line separation request, as confidential means not disclosing or 
permitting access to such information unless subject to a valid court 
order, except: (1) to the individual survivor submitting the line 
separation request; (2) to anyone that the survivor specifically 
designates; (3) to those third parties necessary to effectuate the 
request (i.e., vendors, contractors, and agents); and (4) to the extent 
necessary, to the Commission and the Universal Service Administrative 
Company (USAC) to process emergency communications support through the 
designated program or address complaints or investigations. We disagree 
with CTIA that the Commission should not afford protections to 
survivors (and alleged abusers) from the misuse of their data by law 
enforcement on the basis that doing so is outside the scope of the SCA 
and the Safe Connections NPRM. The SCA directs the Commission to adopt 
regulations concerning the line separations requirements, which 
includes the confidentiality requirements, and thus we find that 
addressing this issue is within the scope of the SCA. Given concerns 
expressed by EPIC et al., we find that requiring law enforcement to 
obtain a court order to access information about a line separation 
request is a necessary protection for survivors (and alleged abusers). 
We do not anticipate that this requirement will be burdensome for 
providers to implement given that they already have a duty to protect 
the confidentiality of proprietary information of customers, including 
a duty to prevent access to customer proprietary network information 
(CPNI) ``[e]xcept as required by law or with the approval of the 
customer.'' Additionally, requiring a court order prevents covered 
providers from being placed in a position of having to assess whether a 
law enforcement official may be misusing their official authority.
    34. We limit providers from using, processing, or disclosing the 
line separation request--or any documentation or information submitted 
with line separation request--for purposes unrelated to implementing 
the request, providing services, or otherwise managing the survivor's 
account. We also conclude that the requirement to ``treat'' information 
submitted in connection with a line separation request as 
``confidential'' prohibits covered providers from using, processing, or 
disclosing (e.g., to joint-venture partners) such information for 
marketing purposes.
    35. We confirm our tentative conclusion that to the extent that any 
information a survivor submits as part of a line separation request 
would be considered CPNI and therefore subject to disclosure to the 
customer or a designee, the SCA's confidentiality requirement 
nevertheless requires that such information (along with any information 
submitted by a survivor that would not be considered CPNI) be treated 
confidentially and disposed of securely. We conclude that this is the 
best reading of the SCA's language requiring confidential treatment 
``[n]otwithstanding Section 222(c)(2)'' of the Communications Act. EPIC 
et al. agrees with this reading, and no commenter offered an 
alternative interpretation. Thus, although section 222(c)(2) normally 
requires telecommunications carriers to ``disclose customer proprietary 
network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, 
to any person designated by the customer,'' when such CPNI is submitted 
by survivors as part of a line separation request, covered providers 
must follow the SCA's heightened requirements for confidentiality and 
secure disposal.
    36. We decline to find that the identity of the abuser and the 
reason for the line separation (i.e., the alleged abuse) should be 
treated as CPNI for the purpose of protecting the personal information 
of abusers, as requested by EPIC et al. Neither data element fits 
logically within the categories of information that constitute CPNI, 
and it need not for those data to benefit from the SCA's confidential 
and secure disposal protections, which protect the privacy of both 
survivors and alleged abusers. The confidentiality obligation itself, 
that is, requires that such information be protected.
    37. To help ensure confidential treatment and secure disposal of 
information submitted with line separation requests, we also require 
covered providers to follow data security measures commensurate with 
the sensitivity of line separation requests, as well as the information 
and documentation submitted with line separation requests. 
Specifically, we require covered providers to implement policies and 
procedures governing confidential treatment and secure disposal of this 
information, train employees on those policies and procedures, and 
restrict access to databases storing such information to only those 
employees who need access to that information. We believe these 
baseline requirements will create the foundation for covered providers 
to treat line separation information confidentially and dispose of it 
securely. We conclude that these requirements will not be burdensome 
for most covered providers given that all telecommunications carriers 
and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers must 
already train employees to protect the confidentiality of proprietary 
information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, 
equipment manufacturers, and customers and that we have specific rules 
governing the protection of CPNI, and we expect that most providers 
already have data security policies and procedures to limit access to 
certain information. In all cases, we anticipate that covered providers 
will only need to modify their practices and systems to include 
treatment of line separation information.
    38. Understanding that covered providers may need flexibility to 
comply with the confidentiality and disposal requirements, we otherwise 
decline to prescribe specific measures that covered providers must use 
to treat information submitted with a line separation request as 
confidential and securely dispose of it. We conclude, however, that 
unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information survivors submit 
as part of a line separation request will be considered evidence in an 
investigation by the Commission that a covered provider has not adopted 
sufficient measures to protect against such disclosure or access. This 
approach aligns with our expectations for carriers' treatment of CPNI. 
The SCA's confidentiality and disposal requirements demonstrate that 
Congress thought the privacy of information related to line separation 
requests is paramount, and we anticipate that our approach will 
incentivize covered providers to adopt best practices as they evolve 
over time to ensure the confidentiality and secure disposal of such 
information. Such best practices might include encryption, masking, 
data minimization (i.e., only collecting data necessary for the 
intended purpose and deleting data when it is no longer necessary), 
access controls, secure password policies, traffic monitoring, and 
internal firewalls. Indeed, a covered provider may be able to overcome 
evidence related to a breach of survivor information if the provider is 
able to show that it used industry best practices at the time of the 
breach. We are also concerned that prescribing specific data security 
practices might result in the rules becoming obsolete over time. We

[[Page 84414]]

make clear that the liability protections in the SCA do not shield 
covered providers, or their vendors, agents, and contractors, from 
enforcement actions that may result from their failure to adopt 
adequate practices to treat line separation information as confidential 
and securely dispose of it. Additionally, we emphasize that covered 
providers subject to section 222 have an independent responsibility to 
protect such confidential information and will therefore be subject to 
potential enforcement action for failures by their vendors, agents, and 
contractors to adopt sufficient confidentiality and secure disposal 
measures.
    39. We also clarify the limited instances in which a covered 
provider may retain information about a line separation request beyond 
the 90-day disposal deadline established by the SCA. First, consistent 
with the SCA, we permit a covered provider to maintain a record that 
verifies that a survivor fulfilled the conditions of a line separation 
request for longer than 90 days, but prohibit providers to retain, as 
part of this record, the affidavit, documentation of survivor status, 
or other original records a survivor submits with the request, as that 
information is deemed confidential and subject to secure disposal 
within 90 days. Second, we permit a covered provider to retain any 
confidential record related to the line separation request, including 
an affidavit and documentation of survivor status, for longer than 90 
days upon receipt of a legitimate law enforcement request. In both 
cases, we require a covered provider to treat the records it retains as 
confidential, and dispose of such records securely. To be clear, even 
though the record that verifies that a survivor fulfilled the 
conditions of a line separation request is not an original record 
submitted with a request, it must nonetheless be treated as a 
confidential record. We decline the Boulder Regional Emergency 
Telephone Service Authority's (BRETSA) suggestion that we require 
covered providers to deliver a 911 call placed by a survivor over the 
survivor's separated line with ``some indication to the PSAP [public 
safety answering point] that the call is from service assigned to an 
individual escaping an abusive relationship.'' We agree with commenters 
that such a requirement falls outside the scope of the SCA and our 
implementing rules.
b. Required Options Covered Providers Must Offer to Survivors
    40. We now adopt requirements regarding basic categories of 
information covered providers must make available to, or request from, 
survivors when granting a line separation request. These requirements 
are intended to streamline the line separation process for covered 
providers and to maximize the simplicity with which survivors can 
obtain line separations in a timely manner. First, we codify in our 
rules the SCA's requirement that a covered provider inform the 
survivor, through remote means, 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. As explained in the Safe Connections NPRM, we find 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. No commenter opposed this approach.
    41. Second, for line separation requests submitted by a survivor 
through remote means, we require covered providers to ``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,'' which mirrors the 
SCA. We conclude that this requirement simply obligates a covered 
provider to allow a survivor to select, at the time the survivor 
submits a line separation request through remote means, the manner the 
provider must use to communicate with a survivor after the survivor 
submits the request. Among the communication options offered to the 
survivor, we require a covered provider to include at least one means 
of communication that is a ``remote means.'' We also require covered 
providers to allow survivors to indicate their preferred language for 
future communications from among those in which the covered provider 
currently advertises, and deliver any such future communications in the 
survivor's preferred language if it is one in which the provider 
currently advertises. Additionally, we require covered providers to ask 
survivors to provide the appropriate contact information with their 
requests. We decline Verizon's suggestion that we require a survivor to 
submit a telephone number and email address with its request for use in 
contacting the survivor. The SCA permits survivors to select the means 
that covered providers must use to communicate with them, which may or 
may not be both phone and email. To prevent covered providers from 
attempting to contact survivors using any other means, we only require 
survivors to provide contact information for the means they select, 
unless it is otherwise necessary to provide documentation of a 
completed line separation request for Lifeline purposes, as discussed 
below. We also prohibit providers from engaging in 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. 
No commenter opposed adoption of these requirements.
    42. Third, we require covered providers to allow a survivor 
submitting a line separation request to indicate their service choices 
when they are submitting a line separation request. Specifically, we 
require covered providers to allow a survivor to indicate the service 
plan a survivor chooses from among all commercially available plans the 
covered provider offers for which the survivor may be eligible, 
including any prepaid plans, as well as whether the survivor intends to 
retain possession (and therefore take financial responsibility) of any 
device associated with a separated line. API-GBV and the Competitive 
Carriers Association (CCA) both supported such a requirement, and no 
commenter opposed it.
    43. Fourth, as mandated by the SCA, we require a covered provider 
to inform the survivor of the existence of the Lifeline program as a 
source of support for emergency communications for qualifying 
survivors, and to include a description of who might qualify for the 
program and how to participate. We require covered providers to provide 
this information to survivors as part of the line separation request 
mechanism as we anticipate that having this information may help 
survivors determine which service plan may suit them best. We require 
covered providers, at a minimum, to inform survivors that their 
participation in the Lifeline program and the Affordable Connectivity 
Program (ACP) based on their status as survivors will be limited to six 
months unless they can qualify to participate in Lifeline and/or ACP 
under the programs' general eligibility requirements. We decline to 
adopt standardized language regarding the content of this communication 
as we do not find it necessary at this time. We find that our approach 
provides sufficient guidance to covered providers regarding what 
information they must

[[Page 84415]]

include in their communications. We also require covered providers to 
allow survivors to indicate whether they intend to apply for emergency 
communications support through the designated program, if available 
through the provider.
    44. Finally, to the extent that a covered provider cannot 
operationally or technically effectuate certain types of line 
separations in all instances, we require a covered provider to 
identify--in a contemporaneous communication to the survivor--which 
types of line separations the provider cannot perform and state that it 
cannot perform those separations due to operational or technical 
limitations.
3. Requirement To Separate Lines Upon Request
    45. We codify the SCA's requirement that, for a shared mobile 
service contract under which a survivor and abuser each use a line, a 
covered provider must, not later than two business days after receiving 
a completed line separation request from a survivor, (1) separate the 
line(s) of the survivor, and the line(s) of any individual in the care 
of the survivor, from the shared mobile service contract, or (2) 
separate the line(s) of the abuser from the shared mobile service 
contract. We conclude, as proposed, that because the SCA 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,'' neither the abuser nor the survivor must be 
the primary account holder for a line separation to be effectuated, 
regardless of whose line is separated from the account. We also find 
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 
individuals in their care.
    46. We acknowledge the seriousness of concerns raised in the 
records about dangers to survivors from spyware applications or 
software installed on a survivor's device that could remain after a 
line separation. We find, however, that regulation of such third-party 
applications and software is beyond the scope of the SCA. We further 
note providers' assertions that removal of such applications and 
software may not be within the control of the covered provider. 
However, with respect to carrier-branded apps and software on devices 
that may enable shared mobile plan account owners to track users' 
devices or provide access to customer information through online 
accounts, we expect covered providers to take all steps necessary to 
ensure that such apps and software do not enable an abuser to retain 
access to information about a survivor's line or device post-
separation.
    47. Below, we clarify covered providers' obligations under this 
requirement, and in doing so, we emphasize the importance of survivors' 
ability to obtain the line separations of their choosing in a timely 
manner while recognizing the practical challenges that covered 
providers may face in effectuating those separations.
a. Identity Authentication
    48. We first require that covered providers attempt to 
authenticate, using multiple authentication methods if necessary, that 
a survivor, or a person in the care of the survivor, requesting a line 
separation is a user of a specific line or lines, and permit covered 
providers to deny line separation requests when the survivor cannot be 
authenticated or the provider has a reasonable belief that the request 
is or may be fraudulent. Specifically, when the survivor is the primary 
account holder or a user designated to have account authority by the 
primary account holder (designated user), we require covered providers 
to attempt to authenticate survivors just as they would any other 
primary account holder or designated user. This means that requests 
coming from primary account holders and designated users must comply 
with any other Commission rules that apply to authentication of such 
individuals, including those related to access to CPNI and the 
Commission's rules adopted to address Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) 
swap and port-out fraud. When the survivor is not the primary account 
holder or a designated user, we require covered providers to attempt to 
authenticate their identity using methods that are reasonably designed 
to confirm the survivor, or a person in the care of the survivor, is 
actually a user of the specified line(s) on the account, and that such 
authentication shall also be sufficient for requesting a SIM change 
when made in connection with a line separation request. To the extent 
this requirement differs from other authentication requirements, see, 
e.g., 47 CFR 64.2010, the line separation authentication requirement we 
adopt in this document to implement 47 U.S.C. 345 serves as an 
exception to those other requirements. We agree with CTIA and CCA that 
providers may need flexibility to authenticate and therefore we decline 
to specify or otherwise limit the methods that covered providers can 
use to authenticate the identity of survivors who are not primary 
account holders. Although we acknowledge that some authentication 
methods may be less secure than others, the record demonstrates that 
certain methods, such as verification using phone calls or text 
messages delivered to a survivor's number or knowledge-based checks 
using call detail information, may be the only practical means in some 
instances to authenticate survivors who are not the primary account 
holder and about whom covered providers have no other information.
    49. Our approach balances our twin goals of maximizing survivors' 
ability to obtain legitimate line separations and of preventing fraud. 
On this issue, industry commenters agreed that covered providers should 
be given flexibility on how to authenticate survivors and their ability 
to deny individuals who cannot be authenticated. Conversely, EPIC et 
al. asserted that the Commission should prioritize survivors' ability 
to access and use the line separations process over speculative 
concerns that the line separations process will be used for fraud. We 
find that the rule we adopt is sufficiently supported by the record and 
therefore we disagree with CTIA that it is necessary to find a 
consensus before establishing authentication requirements. We also find 
that the authentication requirement preserves account security by 
helping to prevent fraudulent account takeovers, protects privacy by 
preventing unauthorized access to account information, and ensures 
covered providers have the necessary account information to comply with 
our rules and the SCA, consistent with the issues the SCA requires the 
Commission to consider when adopting line separation rules.
    50. We decline NCTA's request to permit covered providers to call 
or text lines of those in the care of the survivor that are the subject 
of the line separation request to confirm that the non-abuser 
individual ``approves the separation request'' or otherwise ``confirm 
that the request is valid before approving it.'' NCTA argues that 
covered providers ``should be permitted to decline to process the line 
separation request if this verification is not completed (e.g., because 
the abuser has taken the device associated with the line) and, instead, 
give the party requesting the separation the option of creating a new 
account with a new telephone number.'' As an initial matter, the SCA 
contemplates that a survivor would be able to separate a line even when 
the abuser is in

[[Page 84416]]

possession of the device associated with that line, and therefore we 
disagree that we should approve of covered providers denying separation 
requests for those lines in all instances. More significantly, we are 
concerned that allowing covered providers to attempt verification on 
other lines may alert abusers about the survivor seeking a line 
separation at an early stage in the process. This might occur, for 
example, if the abuser is near to or in possession of the devices 
associated with those lines, such as if the abuser is with children who 
are in the care of the survivor while the survivor is elsewhere seeking 
a separation that includes those children's lines. We therefore find 
that these potential threats to survivors and those in their care 
outweigh the potential fraud prevention benefits of NCTA's proposed 
verification process.
b. Establishing ``Secure Remote Means'' for Line Separation Request 
Submissions
    51. We codify the SCA's requirement that covered providers ``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.'' 
No commenter opposed this requirement, and we elaborate on the various 
aspects of this requirement below.
    52. Secure Means. Consistent with the SCA's goals to protect the 
confidentiality of survivor information, we adopt requirements 
regarding the secure submission of line separation requests. First, we 
conclude that any means a covered provider offers survivors to submit a 
line separation request, including non-remote means, must be secure. 
Second, we find that, at a minimum, secure means are those that prevent 
unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, the fact of the line 
separation request or the information and documentation submitted with 
the line separation request during the submission process. Third, as 
with the Commission's CPNI rules and the rules we adopt above for 
confidential treatment and secure disposal of the records survivors 
submit to covered providers with a line separation request, we conclude 
that unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, the fact of the line 
separation request or the information and documentation submitted with 
a line separation request will be considered evidence in an 
investigation by the Commission that a covered provider did not provide 
a ``secure'' means for submitting the request. We otherwise decline to 
prescribe specific requirements for what constitutes ``secure'' with 
respect to the means of submitting line separation requests, but as 
with our rules governing treatment of line separation records, we 
expect our approach will incentivize covered providers to adopt best 
practices for security as they evolve over time. No commenter opposed 
our adoption of any such requirements.
    53. Remote Means. Although the SCA does not define what constitutes 
``remote means,'' we interpret that phrase in a manner that maximizes 
survivor flexibility for submitting line separation requests. First, we 
conclude that a ``remote means'' for submitting a line separation 
request is a mechanism that does not require the survivor to interact 
in person with an employee of the covered provider at a physical 
location. No commenter opposed this interpretation. We agree with API-
GBV that this interpretation ``is particularly important for survivors 
in remote areas, or in communities in which physically going to a 
single location might jeopardize a survivor's safety or 
confidentiality.'' As such, requiring survivors to visit a brick and 
mortar store would not constitute remote means. Conversely, a form on a 
covered provider's website with the ability to input required 
information and attach necessary documents would constitute remote 
means. We also find 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, fax, and postal mail would constitute 
remote means. Additionally, we conclude that a live telephone 
interaction, text message communication, or video chat with a customer 
service representative would constitute remote means. We do not intend 
this list to be exhaustive as there may be other methods currently 
available or developed in the future that would not require a survivor 
to interact in person with an employee of a covered provider at a 
physical location. Furthermore, to maximize survivor choice, we 
conclude that covered providers can offer survivors means that are not 
considered remote as long as the provider does not require survivors to 
use those non-remote means or make it more difficult for survivors to 
access remote means than to access non-remote means.
    54. Second, consistent with API-GBV and NYC ENDGBV's requests, we 
require covered providers to offer survivors more than one remote means 
of submitting a line separation request, and encourage them to offer 
several means. We are concerned that certain remote means may be so 
obsolete or so novel that they would be difficult for some survivors to 
access, and that if those means are the only ones a covered provider 
offers, they would deter survivors from pursuing a line separation. We 
also anticipate that offering alternative remote means will make line 
separations more accessible to survivors who may be using different 
technologies or have different levels of digital literacy. We conclude 
that when Congress directed covered providers to ``offer a survivor the 
ability to submit a line separation request . . . through secure remote 
means,'' the word ``means'' in this context is ambiguous as to whether 
providers must offer one or more than one means. Given this ambiguity, 
and the lack of the singular article ``a'' before the phrase ``secure 
means,'' we interpret ``means'' as a plural noun.
    55. Third, we conclude that the remote means a covered provider 
offers must allow survivors to submit any necessary documentation, but 
we permit providers 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). 
This approach received support in the record and was otherwise 
unopposed. Fourth, we require covered providers to accept documentation 
in any common format, including, for example, pictures of documents or 
screenshots. We find that this approach will minimize difficulty for 
survivors seeking line separations.
    56. Additionally, consistent with existing statutory and regulatory 
requirements, we make clear that a covered provider must offer 
alternative remote means that are accessible by individuals with 
different types of disabilities. The Accessibility Advocacy 
Organizations highlight the importance of such a requirement, 
explaining that such individuals are often at increased risk of 
domestic violence, and therefore that it is critical that they be able 
to access the protections afforded by the SCA. We decline, however, to 
require that covered providers offer direct video calling (DVC) as a 
means of submitting line separation requests, as the Accessibility 
Advocacy Organizations request. Although we appreciate that DVC may 
have benefits for survivors with disabilities who are seeking line 
separation requests, we decline at this time to impose any specific 
technology given the wide variety of providers and accessible 
technologies available. We instead strongly encourage covered providers 
to offer the ``most accessible and effective services available,'' such 
as DVC, whenever feasible.

[[Page 84417]]

    57. Technically Feasible and Commercially Available Means. No 
commenter addressed whether secure remote means for submitting line 
separation requests are currently ``technically feasible'' and 
``commercially available,'' and if not, how long it would take them to 
be. CTIA noted that the Safe Connections NPRM appropriately 
incorporated into the proposed rules the ``commercial availability'' 
and ``technical feasibility'' limitations that apply to certain 
requirements. We observe that the remote means we identify above are 
commonly used by commercial entities to interact with consumers and 
there are technological processes available to make each of those means 
secure. We also anticipate that many, if not all, of these mechanisms 
can be modified by covered providers to be used for line separation 
requests. Accordingly, we find that secure remote means for submitting 
line separation requests are currently both technically feasible and 
commercially available, and we anticipate that covered providers will 
be able to update their systems and procedures to implement use of more 
than one means before the rules go into effect.
    58. Easily Navigable. We next address how the means to submit line 
separation requests must be ``easily navigable.'' To give covered 
providers flexibility and ensure they are positioned to request all the 
information they need to process line separations in a way that is most 
suitable for their systems, we decline to prescribe the specific 
format, process, or form covered providers must use for survivors to 
submit line separation requests, and instead allow covered providers to 
develop their own mechanisms. However, consistent with the record, to 
ensure consistency and predictability for survivors and the individuals 
and entities that assist them, reduce difficulty for survivors, and 
give covered providers clarity regarding their obligations, we 
establish several requirements for the mechanisms that covered 
providers develop to ensure they are easily navigable for survivors 
submitting line separation requests. Specifically, we require that the 
mechanisms: (1) use wording that is simple, clear, and concise; (2) 
present the information requests in a format that is easy to comprehend 
and use; (3) generally use the same wording and format on all platforms 
available for submitting a request; and (4) clearly identify the 
information and documentation that survivors must include with their 
requests, including clearly listing what survivors should have on hand 
when contacting the provider, and allow survivors to easily provide 
that information. We decline to create or mandate the use of a 
standardized form as requested by NYC ENDGBV as we find that allowing 
covered providers the flexibility to develop their own approaches while 
establishing requirements to ensure those mechanisms are easily 
navigable better balances providers' expertise with the need to 
streamline the process for survivors. Nevertheless, we encourage 
stakeholders to work together to develop such a standardized mechanism, 
to the extent one would be useful for covered providers.
    59. We also require that the means through which a covered provider 
permits survivors to submit line separation requests must be available 
in all the languages in which the covered provider currently advertises 
its services as well as all formats (e.g., large print, braille, etc.) 
in which the provider makes its service information available to 
persons with disabilities. We agree with EPIC et al. that a ``lack of 
meaningful language access can further isolation created by an 
abuser,'' and conclude that requiring language availability for the 
means of submitting requests will help alleviate that isolation. We 
decline, however, to adopt API-GBV's recommendation that covered 
providers offer ``translated forms and instructions in a minimum of the 
10 most commonly used languages in the provider's covered service area, 
as well as any other languages (if any) that the provider advertises 
its services in.'' We find that such a requirement would be 
unreasonably burdensome on covered providers, particularly smaller 
providers, but we encourage all providers to know the predominant 
languages used in their respective communities and translate their 
materials into as many different languages as is feasible. At the same 
time, because we permit survivors to rely on assistance from designated 
representatives and others to pursue line separations, we anticipate 
that survivors who speak languages other than those in which a covered 
provider advertises its services can seek interpretation assistance if 
necessary.
c. Processing of Line Separation Requests
    60. Implementing Survivors' Election of Line Separation. Consistent 
with the statutory language, we interpret the line separation 
requirement as granting survivors the flexibility to pursue line 
separations in the manner that is best for their circumstances. We thus 
conclude, as proposed, that the SCA gives survivors discretion to 
request separation from the account of either the line(s) of the 
survivor (and the line(s) of any individuals in the survivor's care) or 
the line(s) of the abuser, regardless of whether the survivor is the 
primary account holder. We decline to prescribe the circumstances in 
which survivors may pursue each type of line separation, as CTIA and 
NCTA request. The industry trade groups specifically ask the Commission 
to dictate that when a survivor is a primary account holder, the 
abuser's line must be separated from the shared mobile service contract 
and that covered providers can process such line separations by 
canceling the abuser's line. NCTA makes a second request that the 
Commission stipulate that when a survivor is not a primary account 
holder, their lines (and the lines of individuals in the survivor's 
care) must be separated from the shared mobile service contract. In 
both circumstances, the industry groups assert that they are trying to 
avoid situations where they have to establish new accounts in the name 
of the abuser, which they say cannot be done without the abuser's 
knowledge and consent, thereby potentially compromising survivors' 
safety. NCTA also expresses concern that in instances when an abuser 
who is the primary account holder is separated from the shared mobile 
service contract and the survivor becomes the primary account holder, 
``the abuser likely would know details about the account such as the 
PIN or account number that could be used to compromise the survivor's 
service after the line separation.'' However, NCTA does not explain why 
the covered provider would not allow the survivor, as the primary 
account holder, to change the PIN to prevent the abuser from accessing 
the account or use other measures to prevent the abuser from accessing 
the account.
    61. As an initial matter, we find that the industry groups' 
requested approaches are contrary to the text of the SCA and 
disincentivizes covered providers from developing solutions that will 
allow survivors to obtain the line separations of their choosing, 
thereby limiting the SCA's benefits to survivors. For the same reasons, 
we decline to find that covered providers have the discretion to 
determine whether to separate the line of the abuser or the lines of 
the survivor (and those in the survivor's care). If Congress had 
intended to limit the types of line separations a survivor could 
request in a given circumstance, it could have easily said so. We are 
particularly unmoved by the suggestion that

[[Page 84418]]

Congress intended that survivors who are primary account holders must 
separate the line of the abuser and that the abuser's line would then 
be canceled, as this outcome is no different than what primary account 
holder survivors can achieve now, and would therefore make the SCA's 
benefit in this regard superfluous. We do not presume to understand all 
the reasons why a survivor might choose to separate an abuser's line or 
their lines and the lines of those in their care, but Congress chose 
not to limit survivors' choices and neither do we.
    62. Additionally, while we appreciate the practical challenges of 
effectuating line separations precisely as survivors request, we 
anticipate that covered providers will be able to address these 
situations without compromising survivor safety. For instance, covered 
providers may be able to create a temporary placeholder account and 
contact the abuser after the line separation has been completed (and 
the survivor has been notified) to request consent and the necessary 
information to establish a permanent account. Because temporarily 
suspended numbers are not permanently disconnected numbers, they are 
not ``aging numbers'' under the Commission's rules. Covered providers 
must ensure that telephone numbers assigned to a user of a shared 
mobile account and which are the subject of a line separation request 
remain available to be assigned to the user of that number (i.e., a 
survivor, an individual in the care of a survivor, or an abuser).
    63. Alternatively, covered providers could give survivors advance 
notice that the provider would need to contact the abuser prior to 
effectuating the line separation to request the abuser's consent and 
necessary account information, and survivors could then choose whether 
to proceed or select another line separation or account change option. 
Absent these or other solutions that providers may develop, a third 
option is that covered providers can rely on the operational and 
technical infeasibility exception established by the SCA and discussed 
further below. NCTA suggests that the Commission dictating survivors' 
line separation options is a better approach than allowing covered 
providers to deny line separations due to operational or technical 
infeasibility because ``[s]urvivors who chose the incorrect option or 
required further guidance to complete the separation would be forced to 
engage in additional communications with the covered provider at a time 
when it may be difficult or even dangerous for a survivor to be 
involved in such exchanges.'' While we acknowledge NCTA's concern, we 
believe that our requirement that a covered provider state in a 
contemporaneous communication which types of requests it cannot 
complete due to operational or technical infeasibility should address 
the concern. We nevertheless strongly encourage covered providers to 
strive to develop the means to allow survivors to separate lines as 
they see fit.
    64. Verizon argues that ``[i]f a survivor requests that an account 
owner abuser be removed from an account, in practice this may 
technically or operationally require the latter to consent to 
establishment of a new account, undermining Congress's objective of 
ensuring the line separation is not visible to the abuser,'' and that 
``[t]he Safe Connections Act envisions that the wireless provider would 
create a new account for the survivor(s) in those circumstances.'' We 
recognize that in situations where the survivor is not the account 
holder, it is more likely than not that the survivor will elect to 
establish a new account (rather than separate the line of the abuser 
from the existing account) because such a choice will delay notice to 
the abuser, and in some cases may be the only technical or operational 
solution available for the covered provider. But, contrary to Verizon's 
claim, the SCA does not contemplate that the line separation will be 
invisible to the abuser in all cases. Rather, the statute expressly 
contemplates that the primary account holder, who may be the abuser, 
may be notified about the line separation. Therefore we disagree with 
Verizon that the SCA envisions that covered providers would create a 
new account for survivors who might otherwise seek to separate an 
abuser who is the primary account holder just so that the separation is 
not visible to the abuser.
    65. We also address the circumstances under which an individual who 
is ``in the care of'' a survivor may receive a line separation. As 
proposed, we adopt the same approach for determining who qualifies as 
``in the care of'' the survivor for the purposes of line separation 
requests as we do for who may be considered someone ``who cares for 
another individual'' in the definition of ``survivor.'' Specifically, 
we conclude that phrase encompasses: (1) any individuals who are part 
of the same household, as defined in Sec.  54.400 of the Commission's 
rules; (2) minor children of parents or guardians who are survivors 
even if the parents and children live at different addresses; (3) 
individuals who are cared for by a survivor by valid court order or 
power of attorney; (4) and a person over the age of 18 who is 
financially or physically dependent upon a parent, guardian, or 
caretaker (e.g., a non-minor child financially dependent on his or her 
parents or guardians, but who no longer lives at the same address). We 
further find that, unlike the definition of ``survivor,'' 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 we explained in the Safe 
Connections NPRM, the SCA 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. As such, we interpret these provisions to mean 
that covered providers must separate the lines, upon request, of any 
individual in the care of a survivor without regard to whether a 
covered act has been committed or allegedly committed against the 
individual in the care of the survivor. Some commenters expressed 
support for our interpretation and none objected.
    66. Timeline for Processing Line Separation Requests. Recognizing 
the urgency with which survivors may be seeking line separation 
requests, we adopt a rule that clarifies the SCA's requirement that 
covered providers effectuate line separations not later than two 
business days after receiving a completed line separation request from 
a survivor. No commenters opposed this approach, although Verizon 
expressed opposition to a more stringent approach, such as requiring 
processing ``48 hours after receipt.'' Specifically, we require covered 
providers to process line separation requests as soon as feasible, but 
not later than close of business two business days after the day the 
provider receives a completed request. For example, requests received 
before midnight at the end of a Monday must be processed no later than 
close of business on Wednesday. Under our rule, covered providers must 
take all steps to effectuate line separation requests within the two 
business day timeframe, including reviewing the request to determine if 
it is complete and effectuating or rejecting the request. We conclude 
that our rule is consistent with the text and goals of the SCA. We 
recognize that in some instances, the two-business day standard we 
adopt will require the line separation to be

[[Page 84419]]

completed within 48 hours, but that will not always be the case. For 
instance, when submissions are made on Fridays or during the weekend, a 
carrier will have longer than 48 hours to effectuate the line 
separation, though we would encourage them to effectuate it sooner 
whenever possible.
    67. We define business days as Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 
excluding provider holidays, which fulfills requests from industry 
commenters that we incorporate the same definition for business hours 
that make up a business day as is used in the Commission's porting 
rules. Notwithstanding the two-business day requirement, we clarify 
that our ``rules do not undermine the Safe Connections Act's strong 
incentives for wireless providers to accommodate [line separation 
requests].'' Therefore, ``[i]f effectuating [a line separation request] 
is technically infeasible for a particular provider in two business 
days, but three days is feasible,'' the covered provider can rely on 
the technical infeasibility exception to delay completion of the 
request rather than denying the request and requiring survivors to 
start the entire process again, as long as the provider notifies the 
survivor of the status of their request and the expected completion 
timeline within two business days of receiving the request.
    68. We decline to require that covered providers process line 
separation requests in less than two business days in cases of 
emergency or extreme hardship for the survivor, as the National 
Domestic Violence Hotline requests. Although we appreciate that some 
survivors may experience increased urgency for their line separation 
requests, we agree with NCTA that Congress was likely aware of the 
hardship that survivors may be facing when it explicitly gave covered 
providers up to two business days to complete requests, and we 
otherwise anticipate that it would be difficult for covered providers 
to accurately determine which requests qualify as emergencies or 
extreme hardship. For the same reason, we decline requests to require 
that covered providers process line separation requests within two 
calendar days. However, we expect that requiring providers to complete 
all requests as soon as feasible will prevent undue delay in completion 
of requests.
    69. Operational and Technical Infeasibility. We codify the SCA's 
provision that covered providers who cannot operationally or 
technically effectuate a line separation request are relieved of the 
obligation to effectuate line separation requests. Additionally, we 
conclude that any line separation a covered provider can complete 
within two business days under its existing capabilities, as those may 
change over time, does not qualify as operationally or technically 
infeasible. We conclude that because this provision specifies that 
covered providers are only relieved of the ``requirement to effectuate 
a line separation request,'' providers are generally obligated to offer 
survivors the ability to submit requests for line separations described 
in the statute, even if the provider may not be able to effectuate such 
separations in some instances. However, to avoid survivor confusion and 
minimize the need for communications between covered providers and 
survivors, if a covered provider cannot operationally or technically 
effectuate certain types of line separations in all instances, we 
require the covered provider to clearly notify the survivor in its 
Notice to Consumers and through whatever mechanisms survivors are 
permitted to use to request line separations, which types of line 
separations the provider cannot perform and state that it cannot 
perform those separations due to operational or technical limitations.
    70. We require covered providers to take reasonable steps to be 
able to effectuate all types of line separations permitted by the 
statute, but decline to prescribe when a provider can rely on the 
operational or technical infeasibility exception. We find that the 
intent and spirit of the SCA's line separation requirement is that 
survivors be able to obtain the line separations of their choosing, and 
the record indicates that covered providers intend to and will be 
capable of effectuating most line separation requests. We therefore 
think it is appropriate that all covered providers be required to take 
reasonable steps to be able to effectuate all types of line 
separations. However, given the significant differences in covered 
providers' processes and systems, we conclude that we cannot 
categorically define which types of line separations qualify as 
operationally or technically infeasible and that the better course of 
action is to give providers flexibility to make such determinations. We 
nevertheless expect that all covered providers will be able to 
effectuate at least some types of line separations.
    71. We also codify the SCA's 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 
alternatives to submitting a line separation request, including 
starting a new account for the survivor. The SCA uses the phrase 
``starting a new line of service'' which is ambiguous. A new line, if 
made on the same shared account with the abuser, would not accomplish 
Congress's goal of ensuring survivors ``establish[ ] independence from 
. . . abuser[s].'' We thus understand this phrase to describe starting 
a new account for the survivor, which we believe accords with 
Congress's intent. We require covered providers to explain in the 
notification the nature of the operational or technical limitations 
that prevent the provider from completing the line separation as 
requested and any available alternative options that would allow the 
survivor to obtain a line separation. Consistent with the SCA, we 
require a covered provider to notify a survivor of any rejection of a 
line separation request as a result of operational or technical 
infeasibility at the time of the request, or for a request made using 
remote means, not later than two business days after the covered 
provider receives the request. Covered providers shall deliver these 
notifications in the manner of communication selected by the survivor 
at the time of the request and in the language selected by the 
survivor, if applicable. Verizon encourages the Commission to permit 
providers to give ``short plain-English explanations'' regarding the 
nature of a operational or technical limitation preventing the 
processing of a line separation. While we agree with Verizon that 
covered providers should not overwhelm survivors with technical 
explanations, we do require providers to give survivors as much 
information about the operational or technical limitation as will allow 
them to make informed decisions about what to do next, such as, e.g., 
revise their request, initiate a new request, or seek other options.
    72. We conclude that covered providers must offer, allow survivors 
to elect, and effectuate any available alternative options that would 
allow survivors to obtain a line separation. This proposal was 
unopposed in the record. For example, if a covered provider is not able 
to separate an abuser's line from an account because the abuser is the 
primary account holder, but can separate the survivor's line from the 
account, the provider must offer that alternative. Likewise, if a 
covered provider is not capable of processing a line separation request 
in the middle of a billing cycle but can do so at the end of the 
billing cycle, the provider must offer that. This approach maximizes 
the benefits of the line

[[Page 84420]]

separation requirement and helps prevent survivors from being forced 
into a less desirable alternative. We find that the approach we take 
here achieves the goals of the SCA without placing undue costs and 
burdens on covered providers. Verizon explains that ``in some cases, a 
wireless provider may not be able to create a new account for a 
survivor without initially applying certain financial obligations as 
part of the account setup'' and argues that ``as long as those 
obligations are promptly waived by the system or the customer service 
employee after the new account is created, Congress's objective is 
met.'' We agree; however, in such instances survivors must not be 
required to take additional steps for such financial obligations to be 
waived; the wavier must be automatic.
    73. Finally, we also require covered providers to deliver a clear 
and concise notification to survivors, within two business days after 
receiving the request, if a line separation request is rejected for any 
other reason, and such notification must include 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.
    74. Resubmissions. To ensure that survivors making legitimate line 
separation requests can receive timely relief, we conclude that any 
corrections, resubmissions, or selected alternatives for obtaining a 
line separation submitted by survivors following a denial should be 
treated as new requests and therefore must be processed by covered 
providers as soon as feasible, but not later than close of business two 
business days after the provider receives the request. We agree with 
EPIC et al. that ``[t]ime may be of the essence when a survivor 
initiates the line separation request, and there is no reason a 
provider expected to respond within two days of the initial submission 
cannot respond within two days for subsequent submissions.''
    75. Measures to Stop Abusers from Preventing Survivors from 
Obtaining Line Separations. We are concerned that some abusers may take 
preemptive steps to prevent survivors from obtaining line separations, 
particularly if an abuser becomes aware of a survivor's attempt to 
separate a line. We reiterate our conclusion in the Safe Connections 
NPRM that the SCA requires covered providers to complete non-fraudulent 
line separations as long as the request provides the information 
required or permitted by the statute and our implementing rules, 
subject to operational and technical feasibility. Accordingly, we 
implement rules to ensure survivors can obtain line separations 
notwithstanding abusers' efforts to prevent them from doing so. First, 
to stop an abuser or other user from removing the survivor's access to 
the line before the request is processed, we require covered providers 
to lock an account to prevent all SIM changes, number ports, and line 
cancellations (other than those requested as part of the line 
separation request pursuant to section 345 and our rules) as soon as 
feasible after receiving a completed line separation request from a 
survivor, and until a request is processed or denied. Second, given 
evidence in the record that abusers may seek to exert control over 
survivors and to ensure that account locks do not become an avenue for 
perpetuating abuse and other crimes, we require covered providers to 
effectuate line separations, and any number port and SIM change 
requests made by the survivor as part of the line separation request, 
regardless of whether an account lock is activated on the account. 
There is some evidence in the record that stalkerware apps and spyware 
can be used to further endanger survivors, and we think it is 
reasonable to conclude that some survivors may request a SIM change so 
they can keep their separated number, but use a new device, for safety 
reasons. Finally, in situations where any customer other than the 
survivor requests that the covered provider stop or reverse a line 
separation on the basis that the line separation request was 
fraudulent, covered providers must complete or maintain any valid line 
separation request and make a record of the customer's complaint in the 
customer's existing account and, if applicable, the customer's new 
account, in the event further evidence shows that the request was in 
fact fraudulent. We conclude that our approach here best balances the 
importance of account protection measures to prevent fraud with the 
goal of ensuring survivors can obtain legitimate line separations.
    76. Notification to Primary Account Holders and Abusers. As 
contemplated by the SCA, we require a covered provider to inform a 
survivor who has submitted a line separation request, but who is not 
the primary account holder, of the date on which the covered provider 
intends to give any formal notification to the primary account holder. 
We also require covered providers to inform survivors of the date the 
covered provider will inform the abuser of a line separation, 
cancellation, or suspension of service, involving the abuser's line to 
the extent such notification is necessary. We require covered providers 
to give such notice to the survivor as soon as is feasible after 
receiving a completed line separation request. As API-GBV notes, by 
informing survivors of the date the abuser will learn of the line 
separation, covered providers will give survivors an opportunity to 
``do relevant and timely safety planning.'' We prohibit a covered 
provider from notifying an abuser who is not the primary account holder 
when the lines of a survivor or an individual in the care of a survivor 
are separated from a shared mobile service contract. By limiting the 
scope of when covered providers may notify abusers of line separations, 
we acknowledge the concerns of multiple commenters who stress that 
``[o]ne of the most dangerous times for a victim is when they are 
attempting to leave an abusive situation and the abuser becomes aware 
of their intent.'' We also prohibit a covered provider from notifying a 
primary account holder, or an abuser who is not a primary account 
holder, of a survivor's request for a SIM change when made in 
connection with a line separation request pursuant to section 345. We 
decline to require covered providers to further delay notification to a 
primary account holder or abuser whose line is being separated, as 
proposed by some commenters, though we permit and encourage covered 
providers to do so if operationally feasible. As some commenters have 
noted, a line separation request involving the separation of the 
abuser's line may require the abuser to become financially responsible 
for the line immediately following the separation, or to give consent 
to open a new account. In such situations, the covered provider may 
need to inform the abuser immediately upon or before separating the 
abuser's line, making a notification delay infeasible. In implementing 
processes to ensure that primary account holders and, when necessary, 
abusers, are not notified about line separations until the date that 
the covered provider has provided to the survivor, we emphasize that 
covered providers should be mindful of their existing internal systems 
and processes that may cause some or all account users to receive 
automatic notifications about account activity, which may serve as de 
facto notifications about the line separation request.
d. Documentation of Completed Line Separation Request Submission
    77. We require covered providers to provide a survivor with 
documentation that clearly identifies the survivor and shows that the 
survivor has submitted a legitimate line separation request under

[[Page 84421]]

section 345(c)(1) and the Commission's rules upon completion of the 
providers' line separation request review process. The SCA limits 
access to ``emergency communications support'' in the designated 
program to those survivors that meet the requirements of section 
345(c)(1) and that are experiencing financial hardship, regardless of 
their ability to otherwise participate in the designated program. As 
such, survivors will require documentation demonstrating their 
submission of a legitimate line separation request to enroll in 
Lifeline, as the designated program, and receive support. Although no 
commenter offered specific suggestions about the type of information 
that should be included in this documentation to process a request for 
Lifeline support, we rely on the Commission's substantial experience 
managing its affordability programs to determine an appropriate 
approach. Specifically, regarding survivor identity, we require that 
the documentation include the survivor's full name and confirmation 
that the covered provider authenticated the survivor as a user of the 
line(s) subject to the line separation request. We further require that 
covered providers give survivors this documentation even if the line 
separation request could not be processed due to operational or 
technical infeasibility, as long as the survivor submitted a completed 
request in accordance with the requirements of section 345(c)(1) and 
the Commission's rules. We observe that entry into the emergency 
communications program is not limited to only those survivors who 
successfully obtain a line separation, but rather to those who satisfy 
the requirements of section 345(c)(1) and are experiencing financial 
hardship. Finally, we require covered providers to provide this 
documentation to survivors in a manner that would allow the survivor to 
share that documentation with USAC when the survivor seeks Lifeline 
support pursuant to the SCA. Accordingly, covered providers must 
provide the documentation in a written format that can be easily saved 
and shared by a survivor, such as an electronic notice delivered over 
email, information in a survivor's new account that can be easily 
downloaded or captured via a screenshot, some method of text messaging 
that can be easily captured via screenshot, or regular mail delivered 
to an address designated in the request. Telephonic delivery of this 
notice is insufficient, as it will not allow the survivor to confirm 
that they complied with the requirements of the line separation 
process. Covered providers should deliver this documentation via the 
means selected by the survivor for communications regarding the line 
separation request, to the extent such means satisfy both requirements. 
We acknowledge, however, that depending on the methods a survivor 
chooses for communications with a covered provider regarding the line 
separation request, covered providers may not have contact information 
that would allow them to send certain written documentation, and we 
permit providers to request contact information only for the purpose of 
providing this documentation for Lifeline enrollment under the SCA.
e. Employee Training
    78. We conclude that all covered provider employees who may 
interact with survivors regarding a line separation request must be 
trained on how to assist them or on how to direct them to other 
employees who have received such training. Industry commenters stressed 
the need for flexibility regarding employee training requirements to 
account for differences in provider resources, customer bases, and 
systems. Moreover, NCTA noted that ``avoiding prescriptive rules also 
would reduce the implementation burdens associated with the new 
requirements.'' We believe that a flexible approach to training and 
customer service will best allow providers, particularly small 
providers, to account for differences in operational capabilities, 
resources, service models, and customer bases, and as such, we decline 
to adopt more prescriptive requirements regarding training of 
employees. Verizon noted that it ``maintains a group of customer care 
employees specially trained to handle the sensitivities surrounding 
[line separation requests] from domestic violence survivors and to walk 
the survivors through the secure process of documenting the abuse, 
establishing a new account (or removing an alleged abuser from an 
existing account), selecting a service plan and, where requested, 
facilitating a number change or port out.'' While we applaud Verizon's 
efforts and urge covered providers to consider a similar approach, we 
decline to mandate that every covered provider maintain specialized 
staff to address survivor line separation requests, as API-GBV 
suggests. The record reflects that not all providers, particularly 
small providers, may have the operational capabilities or resources to 
establish specialized units of staff.
4. Notice to Consumers
    79. As proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM, we require covered 
providers to provide a ``Notice to Consumers'' with information about 
the options and process for a line separation request made readily 
available to all consumers through the provider's public-facing 
communication avenues. We specifically incorporate the SCA's 
requirement that covered providers ``make information about the options 
and process'' regarding line separations ``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'' for this ``Notice to Consumers.'' The 
record reflects that the Notice to Consumers should be available in an 
``easy to find,'' ``prominent,'' or ``obvious'' place on provider 
websites and applications, and as such, we require covered providers to 
place the Notice to Consumers, or a prominent link to it, on a support-
related page of the website and mobile application of the provider, 
such as a customer service page. We agree with Verizon and NCTA that 
adopting a flexible, rather than a one-size-fits-all, requirement for 
the placement of the Notice to Consumers on provider websites and 
applications enables the wide variety of covered providers to display 
it in the way that is most suitable to their customers, and find that 
our approach here strikes the right balance between being minimally 
prescriptive and ensuring that there is some consistency between 
covered providers' practices. API-GBV suggests that we require 
providers to include links to other victim-related resources, such as 
the National Domestic Violence Hotline, or National Sexual Assault 
Hotline. We decline to do so as this is outside the scope of the 
requirements of the SCA. In physical stores, we permit covered 
providers to make the Notice to Consumers readily available via flyers, 
signage, or other handouts, and require covered providers, at a 
minimum, to ensure that any materials containing the Notice to 
Consumers in-store are clearly visible to consumers and accessible. We 
also require covered providers to provide the Notice to Consumers in-
store in all languages in which the provider advertises within that 
particular store and on its website in all languages in which the 
provider advertises on its website, and in all formats (large print, 
braille, etc.) that the provider uses to make its service information 
available to persons with disabilities. Commenters take no direct

[[Page 84422]]

issue with this approach for the in-store or website Notice to 
Consumers.
    80. We decline at this time to provide more specific guidance 
regarding the SCA's requirement that covered providers make the Notice 
to Consumers readily available ``in other forms of public-facing 
consumer communication.'' We received no comment regarding what other 
forms of communication covered providers employ and how such providers 
should make the Notice to Consumers readily available through those 
avenues. Given the wide variety of communication methods that could 
fall within this category, and the lack of record received from 
industry and consumer stakeholders, we conclude the best approach is to 
preserve the flexibility of covered providers to determine how best to 
communicate the Notice to Consumers beyond their websites and stores. 
We may revisit this approach in the future should we determine that 
covered providers are not doing enough to apprise consumers of their 
rights under the SCA.
    81. Consistent with the SCA, we require covered providers to 
include in the Notice to Consumers, at a minimum, an overview of the 
line separation process that we adopt in this document; a description 
of survivors' service options that may be available to them; a 
statement that the SCA does not permit covered providers to make a line 
separation conditional upon the imposition of penalties, fees, or other 
requirements or limitations; and at least basic information concerning 
the availability of the Lifeline support for qualifying survivors. We 
decline to adopt the suggestion of the NYC ENDGBV that we ``require 
standardized language to explain the entire process of line separation 
to survivors,'' as we find it is most appropriate to allow covered 
providers to tailor the Notice to Consumers to their services, 
operations, and systems. By permitting some flexibility in how covered 
providers communicate the Notice to Consumers, covered providers may 
give detail regarding how their particular customers may request a line 
separation. Additionally, given the variety of platforms and media on 
which the Notice to Consumers will be published, this flexibility will 
give covered providers the leeway to optimally design the notice for 
each communication method.
5. Prohibited Practices in Connection With Line Separation Requests
    82. We adopt our proposal to codify the provisions of the SCA 
prohibiting 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 SCA. We agree with Verizon that the SCA's 
``restrictions on various rates, terms, and conditions of service are 
largely self-executing and self-explanatory,'' and commenters generally 
support our approach in interpreting these provisions of the SCA. We 
provide further guidance on these prohibitions, as necessary, below.
    83. Fees, Penalties, and Other Charges. We adopt the SCA's 
prohibition on making a line separation contingent on payment of a fee, 
penalty, or other charge. As explained in the Safe Connections NPRM, 
and supported by the record, we conclude that this clause would 
prohibit covered providers from enforcing any contractual early 
termination fees triggered by the 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 ceases to receive 
service from the provider. We make this explicit in our rule 
implementing this provision.
    84. Number Portability and Number Changes. We incorporate into our 
rules the SCA's prohibition on conditioning a line separation on the 
customer maintaining service with the provider (provided that such 
portability is technically feasible). We interpret the SCA's 
prohibition on number portability restrictions and fees in relation to 
a line separation request as requiring covered providers to permit both 
the party remaining on an account and the party separating from an 
account to port their numbers, without fees or penalties, provided such 
portability is technically feasible. Likewise, we incorporate into our 
rules the SCA'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, as proposed. As we 
explained in the Safe Connections NPRM, 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 purposes. We conclude that this 
provision of the SCA bars covered providers from prohibiting such 
telephone number change requests or attaching a fee or penalty for 
doing so.
    85. Rate Increases. We incorporate in our rules the SCA's provision 
that prohibits covered providers from making line separations 
contingent on a rate increase for the primary account holder's plan 
with respect to service on any remaining line or lines, although a 
covered provider is not required to provide a rate plan for the primary 
account holder that is not otherwise commercially available. As 
proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM, we interpret this provision to 
prohibit covered providers from denying a survivor's line separation 
request if the primary account holder for the remaining lines does not 
agree to a rate increase, or from forcing 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. We also find 
this provision does not require covered providers 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. We agree with Verizon that beyond this guidance, ``it would be 
unnecessary and counterproductive to micromanage or prescriptively 
regulate how wireless providers implement'' these duties, given their 
wide variety of ``different service plans and business models.'' 
Accordingly, we decline NCTA's suggestion to make explicit in our rules 
``that it is permissible for accounts affected by a line separation to 
remain eligible for multi-line discounts based on the number of lines 
active on each account after the separation has been implemented,'' 
though we note that such a practice would not be prohibited under the 
SCA or our implementing rules, as long as the line separation was not 
contingent on the acceptance by the account holder of a new plan.
    86. Contractual and Billing Responsibilities. We incorporate in our 
rules the SCA's prohibition on making a line separation contingent upon

[[Page 84423]]

``maintaining contractual or billing responsibility of a separated 
line'' with the covered provider. As proposed in the Safe Connections 
NPRM, we interpret this provision as requiring covered providers to 
give the party with the separated line the option to select any 
commercially available prepaid or non-contractual service plan offered 
by the covered provider, whether that party is a survivor or abuser. We 
also conclude that this provision prohibits covered providers from 
requiring a survivor who separates a line to maintain 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).
    87. Credit Checks. Consistent with the record, we adopt our 
proposal to specify that covered providers may not make line 
separations contingent on the results of a credit check or other proof 
of a party's ability to pay. We likewise adopt our proposal to prohibit 
covered providers from relying on credit check results to determine the 
service plans from which a survivor is eligible to select and whether a 
survivor can take on the financial responsibilities for devices 
associated with lines used by the survivor or individuals in the care 
of the survivor. As Congress explained, ``[s]urvivors often lack 
meaningful support and options when establishing independence from an 
abuser, including barriers such as financial insecurity,'' and 
survivors may thus not be able to demonstrate their financial stability 
as a result of their abusive situation. As such, we find it consistent 
with the SCA to prohibit covered providers from making line separations 
contingent on the results of a credit check or other proof of a party's 
ability to pay. Consistent with our tentative findings in the Safe 
Connections NPRM, however, we find that these restrictions would not 
impact the ability of a covered provider to perform credit checks that 
are part of its routine sign-up process for all customers as long as 
the covered provider does not take the results of the credit check into 
account when determining whether it can effectuate a line separation. 
We believe this approach addresses NCTA's suggestion that the 
Commission not prohibit covered providers from ``requir[ing] other 
proof of ability to pay or other verification information'' as part of 
``applying their standard payment terms to separated accounts . . . .'' 
Stated another way, we permit covered providers to use credit checks in 
the generally applicable account sign-up process after they have 
effectuated the line separation for survivors.
6. Financial Responsibilities and Account Billing Following Line 
Separations
    88. We adopt our proposal to codify the SCA's statutory 
requirements for financial responsibilities and account billing 
following line separations. Specifically, unless otherwise ordered by a 
court, when survivors separate their lines and the lines of individuals 
in their care from a shared mobile service contract, they must assume 
the financial responsibilities, including monthly service costs, for 
the transferred numbers beginning on the date on which a covered 
provider transfers the billing responsibilities for and use of the 
transferred numbers to those survivors. Covered providers may not 
require survivors to assume financial responsibility for mobile devices 
associated with those separated lines unless the survivor purchased the 
mobile devices, affirmatively elected to maintain possession of the 
mobile devices, or are otherwise ordered to by a court. When survivors 
separate an abuser's line from a shared mobile service contract, a 
covered provider may not impose on survivors any further financial 
responsibilities to the transferring covered provider for the services 
and mobile devices associated with the telephone number of the 
separated line. To ensure that providers can implement processes and 
procedures that work with their particular information technology (IT), 
billing, and other administrative systems, we decline to implement more 
prescriptive rules governing covered providers' administration of the 
financial responsibility and account billing requirements. Given the 
complexities and uniqueness of each provider's systems, we agree with 
CCA that ``flexible rules will enable wireless providers to comply and 
make necessary technical and operational updates in a manner best 
adapted to their service model, customer base, and available 
resources.'' Although we decline to implement more prescriptive rules 
beyond those established in the SCA, in consideration of the record, 
and pursuant to the SCA's charge that we consider account billing 
procedures and financial responsibilities in adopting rules governing 
line separations, we clarify how providers apply those obligations 
below.
    89. Lines. Although the SCA contemplates that survivors will not be 
financially responsible for the abuser's line the moment the line 
separation is processed, we recognize that there may be instances when 
a covered provider cannot practically prorate those financial 
responsibilities. In such instances, we make clear that a covered 
provider can rely on the operational and technical infeasibility 
exception to process the request without prorating the financial 
responsibilities for the abuser's line, as long as the provider 
releases the survivor from financial responsibility for the abuser's 
line at the start of the next billing cycle, which we expect will not 
be more than one month following the date the request is processed.
    90. Similarly, we understand, as Verizon explains, that ``in some 
cases, a wireless provider may not be able to create a new account for 
a survivor without initially applying certain financial obligations as 
part of the account setup.'' We agree that, ``as long as those 
obligations are promptly waived by the system or the customer service 
employee after the new account is created, Congress's objective is 
met.'' We stress, however, that covered providers must waive these fees 
without requiring survivors to follow up or take additional steps.
    91. Devices. We clarify how the obligations for device financial 
responsibilities apply when a third party is involved with the 
financing or sale of the device. NCTA states that ``some providers 
offer device financing through a third party, and it is the third party 
that has a contractual relationship with the customer.'' In that 
scenario, NCTA asserts, ``the provider may not have the ability to 
waive device costs and it should not be required to bear such costs.'' 
We observe that, in most cases, a contract to finance a device through 
a third party is an agreement to ``purchase'' the device, and as such, 
a survivor may be financially responsible for the financed device 
associated with the separated line under the provisions of the SCA. In 
any event, neither the SCA nor our rules require covered providers to 
bear device costs. If, however, a covered provider offers a device for 
sale on its website, in a retail store, or through some other means, we 
conclude that it is the provider's responsibility to ensure that the 
financial responsibilities for any devices are assigned to the 
appropriate party following a line separation, including when the 
device is purchased using third-party financing offered by the 
provider. We find that this approach most closely aligns with the goals 
of the SCA.

[[Page 84424]]

    92. We agree with Verizon, however, that when a device is offered 
and financed by a third party, such as a big-box retailer or directly 
from the device manufacturer, the covered provider does not have an 
obligation to ensure that third party complies with the SCA's device 
financial responsibility obligations. In this scenario, the covered 
provider was not involved with the sale or financing of the device and 
has no relationship with the seller or financier, so there is no means 
by which the covered provider can compel the third party to comply with 
the obligations the SCA places on the provider.
    93. Payment Terms and Conditions. We conclude that the SCA permits 
covered providers to apply their standard payment or contract terms and 
conditions to separated lines and devices, to the extent that such 
terms are consistent with the SCA's limitations on penalties, fees, and 
other requirements. We agree with NCTA that the statute ``is not 
intended to upend the customer-provider relationship,'' and that 
requiring different terms and conditions in service agreements for 
survivors could ``increase the incidence of fraud.'' In this regard, 
NCTA noted that ``some providers may require a credit card to secure 
the device, require or incentivize enrollment in monthly auto-pay 
programs, or require other proof of ability to pay or other 
verification information, such as billing address or the last four 
digits of the Social Security number.'' These provider practices do not 
appear to run afoul of the SCA's limitations. Providers, however, 
should be keenly aware that some survivors may lack access to credit, 
may be in a transitory state and temporarily lack a permanent address, 
or be otherwise unable to satisfy some other standard provider 
requirements. In such cases, providers should work closely with 
survivors by either helping them gather the necessary payment and 
verification documentation or by providing information on how they can 
otherwise satisfy provider requirements, such as by applying to the 
Lifeline program for financial assistance. If a survivor is ultimately 
unable to satisfy the provider's standard terms, the provider should 
also be prepared to inform the survivor of alternative communications 
service options the provider may offer, such as prepaid or postpaid 
plans, or the ability to port a number to another provider who may 
offer service to those in similar circumstances. Though not required by 
the SCA or by our rules, providers should consider waiving certain 
terms and conditions some survivors may be temporarily unable to 
satisfy due to extenuating circumstances. Congress's findings note the 
key role communications services can play in helping survivors 
establish autonomy and safety from abusers, but provider terms and 
conditions that are too onerous on survivors could unnecessarily impede 
survivor access to the SCA's benefits, including the ability to 
establish independent wireless service.
    94. Arrears. We adopt our proposal that any previously accrued 
arrears on an account following a line separation must stay with the 
person who was the primary account holder prior to the separation. 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. No commenters raised any concerns about the 
administrability of this approach.
7. Effects on Other Laws and Regulations
    95. Number Porting. We conclude that the Commission's current 
telephone number porting rules apply for lines that have been separated 
pursuant to section 345 of the Communications Act. As explained in the 
Safe Connections NPRM, we do not believe, and the record provides no 
indication, 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 
conclude that any ports covered providers are currently required to 
complete, and technically capable of completing, are technically 
feasible under the SCA. We also conclude that should the requirements 
or capabilities for number porting change in the future, any newly 
feasible ports will also be considered technically feasible when sought 
in connection with a line separation under the SCA.
    96. We also find that, as a practical matter, although survivors 
may indicate as part of their line separation request that they intend 
to port out the separated (or remaining) telephone numbers to a new 
provider, a covered provider must complete a line separation request 
prior to effectuating a number port pertaining to that line. As the 
Commission explained in its Safe Connections NPRM, customers who want 
to port a number to a new provider currently must provide the telephone 
number, account number, ZIP code, and any passcode on their existing 
account to the new provider. Survivors who are not primary account 
holders, however, may have limited access to the necessary account 
information. However, once a line separation is completed, a survivor 
will have a new account and presumably have access to all the 
information needed to port a number to a new provider. Furthermore, as 
Verizon noted and as NCTA echoed, completing the line separation 
process and then porting a number will ``enable providers to leverage 
their existing porting processes, to apply appropriate porting fraud 
prevention measures, and to manage their number inventories in a manner 
that facilitates continued compliance with the number aging and 
Reassigned Number Database (RND) reporting requirements.'' And, because 
simple wireless-to-wireless ports typically happen within a few hours, 
there would be little time saved by requiring providers to concurrently 
separate lines and process ports. As such, we find that providers 
should process and complete line separation requests before completing 
number ports, which will allow them to leverage their existing systems 
and processes that port numbers ``routinely and reliably.'' To the 
extent that a survivor initiates a port-out request with a new service 
provider for a line that is the subject of an in-process line 
separation request, we prohibit the current service provider from 
notifying the account holder of the request to port-out that number 
until after the line separation request has been completed, to avoid 
situations where an abuser who is the account owner is notified of a 
survivor's pending line separation or port-out request on an account 
shared by an abuser and a survivor.
    97. Compliance with Privacy Protections and Other Law Enforcement 
Requirements. In adopting rules to implement the SCA, Congress directed 
the Commission to consider, among other things, privacy protections and 
compliance with the Commission's CPNI rules or any other legal or law 
enforcement requirements. The Commission's CPNI rules implement section 
222 of the Communications Act, which 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

[[Page 84425]]

confidentiality of proprietary information of and relating to their 
customers. Subject to certain exceptions, section 222(c)(1) 
specifically 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 customers' proprietary information. Among other things, the rules 
require carriers to appropriately authenticate customers seeking access 
to CPNI. The Commission's CPNI 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 for lost 
or forgotten passwords, online account, or address of record is created 
or changed.
    98. We provide additional guidance regarding the treatment of 
historical CPNI and notification of account changes related to lines 
subject to a line separation request pursuant to section 345. In 
particular, we make clear that historical CPNI shall remain with the 
original account, though we permit covered providers to move CPNI 
associated with a separated line if feasible. We agree with NDVH that 
retroactively separating historical CPNI by each line on an account and 
then transferring it along with the separated line to a new account may 
not be technically feasible or practical for providers. Therefore, we 
conclude that covered providers are not required to move historical 
CPNI associated with a separated line to a new account, although we 
encourage providers to do so to the extent possible.
    99. We also modify the Commission's rule requiring 
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'' to clarify that this rule 
does not apply when such changes are made in connection with a line 
separation request made pursuant to the SCA.
    100. Finally, we make clear that except for any enhanced 
protections provided to survivors under state law as described in 
section 345(c)(3), compliance with the line separation provisions of 
the SCA and the rules we have adopted in this document to implement 
those provisions supersede and preempt any conflicting obligations 
under state law, Commission rules, or state rules. Commenters did not 
raise concerns regarding conflicts with any law enforcement provisions 
regarding line separations.
8. Implementation
    101. Compliance Timeframe. Consistent with prior Commission 
actions, and in light of the urgency of this issue to survivors' 
safety, we require covered providers to comply with our rules 
implementing the SCA's line separation provisions within a short period 
of time, six months after the effective date of this document or after 
review of the rules by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is 
completed, whichever is later. The SCA 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, but also directs the Commission, in 
adopting rules, to consider ``implementation timelines, including those 
for small covered providers.'' We find the SCA's direction that the 
Commission consider ``implementation timelines'' in adopting rules to 
implement new section 345 of the Communications Act provides the 
Commission with discretion to establish an appropriate compliance 
timeframe as necessary based on the record. Because we establish a 
compliance timeframe for our implementing rules that is after the 
effective date of new section 345 of the Communications Act, we will 
delay enforcement of those rule provisions until after the compliance 
date of the rules. Further, because many of the rules we adopt to 
implement new section 345 of the Communications Act contain information 
collections that are subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and the SCA 
provides no stated exception to the PRA, we have an independent 
statutory obligation to comply with the PRA in adopting rules to 
implement the SCA. We therefore require covered providers to comply 
with the rules implementing the line separation provisions of the SCA 
six months after the effective date of this document, or after OMB 
completes review of the rules, whichever is later. We direct the 
Wireline Competition Bureau to issue a Public Notice announcing the 
compliance date for the rules implementing section 345 once OMB 
completes its review.
    102. The record demonstrates that implementing the line separation 
provisions of the SCA will require providers to make significant 
changes to their systems and processes. As NCTA explains, ``providers 
will need time to build internal systems to meet the requirements of 
the Commission's rules, to test, deploy, and train. There are a number 
of unknown variables that make it difficult to fully build out a 
provider's compliance system until the Commission adopts the final 
rules.'' We agree with CTIA that ``[g]iven the highly sensitive nature 
of supporting survivors, it is vitally important that providers have 
sufficient time to implement the necessary changes to their systems and 
processes accurately and effectively.'' We are also mindful that, 
absent sufficient time to modify and test their systems, a significant 
number of covered providers will employ the technical and operational 
infeasibility exception to deny line separation requests, leading to 
widespread survivor confusion. For these reasons, we require covered 
providers to comply with the rules implementing the statutory line 
separation requirements six months after the effective date of this 
document, or after OMB review of those rules that involve information 
collections under the PRA, whichever is later. We find, however, that 
permitting a more extended compliance timeframe for implementing the 
line separation provisions, as advocated for by industry commenters 
would be inconsistent with the urgency Congress demonstrated with the 
underlying statutory obligation as well as with the critical wireless 
communications needs of survivors well-documented in the record. We 
anticipate that many covered providers will be equipped to effectuate 
line separations within six months of the effective date of this 
document, given the steps that the industry has already taken to 
advance this important process, and we encourage covered providers to 
implement the rules we adopt in this document as expeditiously as 
possible given the urgency of the concerns at issue. We also remind 
covered providers that given the urgency expressed by Congress in the 
SCA, they should be sensitive to survivors that may need assistance 
during the six-month implementation and compliance

[[Page 84426]]

timeframe, and strongly encourage covered providers not to subject 
survivors to fees or other restrictions in conjunction with setting up 
a new account or cancelling an existing account while the line 
separation process is technically or operationally infeasible.
    103. The SCA directs the Commission to consider implementation 
timelines for small covered providers, and after examination of the 
record, we decline to adopt a different compliance timeframe for small 
providers. First, given the critical and potentially lifesaving 
importance of independent communications for survivors escaping abusive 
circumstances, we think it self-evident that survivors who receive 
service from small covered providers are no less entitled to the 
protections made available by the SCA than survivors who receive 
service from other covered providers. Second, we find that adopting 
inconsistent timelines for small and large providers may make it 
difficult for stakeholders to carry out effective messaging campaigns 
touting the availability of line separations. This inconsistency may 
confuse survivors and ultimately dissuade them from further pursuing a 
line separation if they are told that their current carrier does not 
offer the ability despite having been informed of the SCA's features by 
a stakeholder messaging campaign. Third, we believe that Congress 
included the technical and operational infeasibility provisions to 
account for differences in the capabilities of providers (among other 
reasons), particularly between large and small providers, and to 
incentivize and protect providers while they work to update or develop 
systems and processes capable of fully effectuating the SCA's 
requirements and our rules within the compliance timeframe.

B. Ensuring the Privacy of Calls and Text Messages to Domestic Abuse 
Hotlines

    104. The SCA directs the Commission to consider (i) 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 (ii) 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.'' As 
discussed below, we find it is in the public interest to establish such 
a central database and adopt a process for doing so. We begin our 
discussion with the requirement for covered providers to exclude calls 
or text messages to covered hotlines from consumer-facing call logs, 
and the definitions of key terms.
1. Creating an Obligation To Protect the Privacy of Calls and Text 
Messages to Covered Hotlines
    105. We adopt our proposal to require covered providers and 
wireline providers of voice service to exclude 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 (discussed further 
below), and to retain internal records of the omitted calls and text 
messages. We make clear that the use of the word ``omit'' in our rule 
provision regarding this requirement (Sec.  64.6408(a) (``All covered 
providers, wireline providers of voice service, fixed wireless 
providers of voice service, and fixed satellite providers of voice 
service shall . . . [o]mit 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'')), should be 
understood to mean ``completely exclude,'' not merely redact 
identifying detail. Congress determined 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.'' 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 record in this docket 
also reflects concerns raised regarding call and text logs. For 
example, the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic 
Violence notes that ``[r]isk to survivors escalates when they are 
seeking to leave their abuser and calls to hotlines often precede 
separation from one's abuser,'' and the Network for Victim Recovery of 
DC (NVRDC) observes that ``[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 
in seeking help 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. We therefore 
conclude that protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to 
covered hotlines, as described by the SCA, is in the public interest. 
This proposal received broad support and no opposition.
    106. The SCA 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 SCA 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.''
    107. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Safe Connections 
NPRM that covered providers and wireline providers of voice service are 
able to identify consumer-facing call and text logs, and no commenter 
disputed this assertion. Nor did any commenter contend that excluding 
calls and text messages to covered hotlines from consumer-facing call 
logs was technically infeasible, or that it was technically infeasible 
to retain internal records of such calls while excluding such calls 
from consumer-facing call logs. Indeed, none of the trade associations 
representing substantially different segments of covered providers and/
or providers of wireline voice service raises specific issues relating 
to selectively omitting calls and text messages from call and text logs 
in their discussion of implementation.
    108. We also adopt our proposal to require providers that remove 
calls and text messages to covered hotlines from consumer-facing call 
logs to retain an internal record of such calls for as long as they 
normally retain internal records of calls. Retaining such internal 
records is necessary to ensure some record remains available if 
disputes or criminal investigations or civil or criminal legal 
proceedings arise. Further, records of calls and text messages do not 
appear to exist solely in the form of call logs, but, rather, are 
independent records--that is, some processing must be applied to the 
records to create call logs. As a result,

[[Page 84427]]

as proposed, we require service providers to maintain internal records 
of calls and text messages that they exclude from consumer-facing logs 
when such records are required for any criminal or civil enforcement 
proceeding, or for any other reason. No commenter opposed this 
proposal. We use the term ``service provider'' to refer all types of 
providers to which we apply the obligation to protect the privacy of 
calls and text messages to hotlines--covered providers, wireline 
providers of voice service, and, as discussed below, fixed wireless and 
fixed satellite providers.
    109. Extension of Obligation to Fixed Wireless and Fixed Satellite 
Providers of Voice Service. The Commission observed in the Safe 
Connections NPRM that subscribers to fixed wireless and fixed satellite 
voice service may expect that the privacy of their calls and text 
messages to hotlines are also protected, despite the providers of the 
service likely being neither ``covered provider[s]'' or wireline 
providers, and sought comment on whether we should therefore extend 
related obligations to such providers. No party responded to our 
request for comment on factors that would prevent such providers from 
complying with our rules in any respect. We believe that subscribers to 
such services should be afforded such protections, a matter that no 
party disputes, and that we should seek to meet survivor expectations 
regarding the privacy of their calls and text messages to hotlines. We 
therefore extend our related obligations to fixed wireless and fixed 
satellite providers of voice service.
    110. We conclude that we have direct authority to adopt this 
requirement under titles II and III of the Communications Act, and we 
independently assert our ancillary authority to that end as well. We 
have direct authority to extend our rules protecting the privacy of 
calls and texts to hotlines to fixed wireless and fixed satellite 
providers of voice. Section 201(b) of the Communications Act requires 
that all charges, practices, classifications, and regulations in 
connection with common carrier service be just and reasonable, and 
authorizes the Commission to prescribe rules as necessary in the public 
interest to carry out this requirement. If fixed wireless and fixed 
satellite providers of voice service were not subject to our rule, they 
could continue to include calls to hotlines in their call logs. That 
practice would be unjust and unreasonable, particularly in instances in 
which the abuser established and controls the household account, and 
survivors in that household may not know that the relevant service in 
that account is provided over fixed wireless or fixed satellite rather 
than wireline facilities. In that situation, the survivors might 
believe, incorrectly, that their calls to hotlines would be omitted 
from call logs to which the abuser has access. Further, even if the 
survivors knew that the household service was fixed wireless or fixed 
satellite, they often would not appreciate the legal nicety that the 
Commission's rules shielded only certain types of calls to hotlines 
(mobile wireless or wireline) but did not shield two other types of 
calls (fixed wireless and fixed satellite) that were functionally 
indistinguishable from the survivor's point of view. In either of those 
situations, the safety, even the lives, of survivors would be 
threatened. For instance, if a survivor wrongly assumed that a fixed 
wireless hotline call to a hotline was shielded and then placed such a 
call, the abuser could readily discover that call and, in retribution, 
threaten or harm the survivor or prevent the survivor from separating 
his or her line or fleeing to safety. Such consequences would not be 
just and reasonable, and we therefore assert our authority under 
section 201(b) to require common-carrier providers of fixed wireless 
and fixed satellite voice to comply with new Sec.  64.6408 of our 
rules. To the extent these providers are wireless or satellite 
licensees, we also have authority to impose these obligations pursuant 
to sections 301, 303, and 316 of the Communications Act.
    111. As a separate and independent basis, we assert our ancillary 
authority, which may be employed, at the Commission's discretion, when 
the Communications Act ``covers the regulated subject'' and the 
assertion of jurisdiction is ``reasonably ancillary to the effective 
performance of [the Commission's] various responsibilities.'' Section 1 
of the Communications Act grants the Commission authority over, among 
other things, ``radio communication,'' which fixed wireless and fixed 
satellite providers of voice services provide when processing 
originating calls and text messages. The duty to protect the privacy of 
calls and text messages to hotlines is reasonably ancillary to the 
Commission's duty to enable survivors safely to obtain line separations 
under section 4 of the SCA, and its duty under section 5(b)(3)(A) of 
the SCA to consider whether and how to adopt rules to establish a 
central database of domestic violence 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 such hotlines. As explained above, if our new rule 
protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines were to 
apply to wireline providers of voice service but not fixed wireless or 
fixed satellite providers of voice, survivors often would not know 
whether their calls and text messages to hotlines would be omitted from 
the pertinent call logs. This is more likely to be the case when the 
abuser controls (and was therefore more likely to have established) the 
account, which is a common fact pattern when a survivor would be 
concerned about their abuser being able to see calls and text messages 
to hotlines on call logs. And that uncertainty likely would have 
devastating consequences for the safety of survivors, which in turn 
would defeat the purpose of the line-separation and protection of 
privacy of calls and texts to hotlines provisions of the SCA and, more 
generally, would undermine the SCA's overall goal of establishing 
``safeguards within communications services [that] can serve a role in 
preventing abuse . . . experienced by survivors of abuse.'' 
Accordingly, we assert our ancillary authority to prevent those harms 
and ensure that new Sec.  64.6408 works efficaciously.
    112. Technical Feasibility and Exceptions. Consistent with the 
statutory directive, the Commission sought comment in the Safe 
Connections NPRM on the technical feasibility of imposing an obligation 
to protect the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines on 
certain types of services providers and relating to certain calls. The 
Commission received requests relating to two matters in addition to a 
request pertaining to the compliance deadline for small service 
providers, which we discuss below. First, USTelecom seeks clarification 
that the rules that the Commission adopts do not apply to calls placed 
by, and any logs created in association with, (wireline) enterprise and 
similar multi-line telephone system (MLTS) customers. USTelecom argues 
that logs relating to such services are not consumer-facing logs and 
that these systems are managed, maintained, and controlled by the 
customer rather than the service provider. USTelecom's proposal was 
unopposed. We agree that both the SCA and the proposed rules are 
directed to consumer-facing logs and recognize that applying our rules 
to call logs that are not controlled by the service provider would 
complicate our implementation of the SCA. In addition, in the event 
that a survivor were to use

[[Page 84428]]

an enterprise system to place a call to a hotline, we believe that the 
large number of users of such enterprise systems, as compared to 
consumer accounts, creates more anonymity for survivors. As a result, 
we clarify that the rules we adopt pertaining to protecting the privacy 
of calls and text messages to hotlines do not apply to non-consumer 
accounts, such as for enterprise and MLTS service.
    113. Second, commenters also raise undisputed concerns about the 
extent to which resellers, such as MVNOs, that ``depend on their 
underlying facilities-based providers for systems necessary to . . . 
screen call logs'' should be expected to comply, arguing that such 
resellers' obligations should be ``limited to the capabilities that the 
facilities-based provider makes available to its own customers.'' We 
conclude that it is not practical for service providers that do not 
create their own call logs but, instead, rely on their underlying 
facilities-based provider to create such call logs, to comply with our 
rules for protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to 
hotlines. We therefore exempt such service providers from these 
obligations. At the same time, however, we conclude that the underlying 
facilities-based service provider that produces the call logs for its 
wholesale customers (that is, the call logs that are ``consumer-
facing'' toward the wholesale customers' end user customers) is 
obligated to comply with our rules. The definitions we adopt for 
``covered provider,'' ``wireline provider of voice services,'' ``fixed 
wireless provider of voice services,'' and ``fixed satellite provider 
of voice services'' are not limited to retail services. And the 
definition we adopt for ``consumer-facing logs of calls and text 
messages'' does not state that the consumer at issue has to be a 
customer of the pertinent covered provider, wireline provider of voice 
service, fixed wireless provider of voice services, or fixed satellite 
provider of voice services. Accordingly, the definitions we adopt have 
the effect of imposing the same duty on wholesale providers that create 
call logs for their wholesale customers as imposed on providers that 
produce their own consumer-facing call logs. Imposing this duty also 
furthers the overall goal of removing calls and text messages to 
covered hotlines from consumer-facing call logs in the most 
comprehensive manner possible. Further, we expect resellers that do not 
control their own call logs to make good faith efforts, such as through 
their contracts, to ensure that their wholesale providers are complying 
with our rules.
    114. Third, we decline to adopt CTIA's proposal to create a general 
technical infeasibility exception. While the SCA requires the 
Commission to consider ``the ability of a covered provider or wireline 
provider of voice service'' to identify consumer-facing logs and omit 
calls from consumer facing logs while retaining internal records of 
such calls, in contrast to the provisions relating to line separations, 
the SCA does not contain an explicit technical infeasibility exception. 
As previously discussed, the record demonstrates that service providers 
generally have these technical abilities. Furthermore, we find that 
survivor safety, which is promoted through the uninhibited use of 
domestic violence hotlines, weighs against leaving technical 
infeasibility standards to the subjective determination of service 
providers. Should service providers encounter specific technical 
feasibility issues in their implementation of the rules we adopt that 
they believe warrant an exception to those rules, they may use the 
Commission's general process for requesting waiver of a Commission 
rule. We delegate consideration of such waiver requests to the Wireline 
Competition Bureau.
    115. Access to Retained Internal Call Records. As noted above, we 
require providers to retain internal records of the calls and text 
messages they omit from consumer-facing call logs as a result of the 
new rules. We do so recognizing, among other things, that section 
5(b)(3)(C) of the SCA states that the Commission cannot ``limit or 
otherwise affect'' the ability of law enforcement to access call logs 
``in a criminal investigation'' or ``alter or otherwise expand provider 
requirements'' under the Communications Access for Law Enforcement Act 
(CALEA). Although no commenter opposed our proposal to adopt this 
retention requirement, EPIC et al. proposed that we limit law 
enforcement's access to such records to instances where the survivor 
requests that law enforcement be given access, and to require a 
judicial order or grand jury subpoena before a provider could disclose 
the internal call or text records to law enforcement. We decline this 
request. The SCA prohibits us from ``limit[ing] or otherwise 
affect[ing] the ability of a law enforcement agency to access a log of 
calls or text messages in a criminal investigation[ ],'' and EPIC et 
al.'s request would appear to ``affect'' law enforcement's access as it 
would add constraints on law enforcement's access ability to call logs 
during a criminal investigation, especially in instances where speed is 
essential or where a survivor is unavailable to give consent. At the 
same time, we emphasize that while our rules neither limit or otherwise 
affect the ability of a law enforcement agency to access a log of calls 
or text messages in a criminal investigation, they are also not 
intended to enhance such access. They merely preserve the status quo by 
ensuring that service providers maintain the same records that they 
maintain today.
2. Definitions
    116. How we define certain critical terms in the SCA significantly 
affects which service providers are subject to the call-log removal 
obligations discussed above and hotline-database obligations discussed 
below, the extent of such obligations, and to which hotlines the 
obligations apply. We adopt definitions of ``covered provider,'' 
``voice service,'' ``call,'' ``text message,'' ``covered hotline,'' and 
``consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages.''
    117. Covered Provider. We conclude that all ``covered 
provider(s),'' as defined in the SCA, should be obligated to protect 
the privacy of calls and text messages to covered hotlines. We 
therefore adopt the same definition of covered provider used for the 
purpose of applying line separation obligations under section 345(a)(3) 
of the Communications Act, as added by the SCA. EPIC et al. supported 
this proposal, which received no opposition.
    118. The National Lifeline Association argues that ``covered 
providers should not include mobile broadband providers that do not 
offer mobile voice service.'' To the extent that a covered provider 
does not actually have consumer-facing logs of calls, as the National 
Lifeline Association seems to assert some covered providers do not, 
then there is no obligation for omitting certain calls and text 
messages with which such covered provider must comply. This reasoning 
applies equally to covered providers that do not actually have 
consumer-facing logs of text messages. It is therefore unnecessary for 
us to create an exception for these situations within the definition of 
``covered provider.''
    119. Voice Service. In addition to covered providers, we apply the 
call-log removal duty to all ``wireline providers of voice service,'' 
as suggested by the SCA, as well as ``fixed wireless providers of voice 
service'' and ``fixed satellite providers of voice service.'' These 
definitions require defining ``voice service,'' which we base on the 
definition in section 5 of the SCA. That provision references section 
4(a) of the TRACED Act, which defines ``voice

[[Page 84429]]

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.'' No 
commenter opposed this proposal. We also note that the Commission 
interpreted the TRACED Act definition when implementing that Act's 
requirements, and chose to mirror the definition in its rules.
    120. Call. The SCA does not define the term ``call,'' nor does the 
Communications Act. Consistent with our proposal in the Safe 
Connections NPRM, solely for purposes of implementing section 5(b)(3) 
of the SCA, we elect to define a ``call'' as a voice service 
transmission, regardless of whether such transmission is completed. 
Given the expansive definition of ``voice service,'' which we define 
without regard to whether the service is wireline or wireless, this 
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 in deference to the safety concerns of 
survivors, we will include completed and uncompleted transmissions in 
the definition of ``call.'' No commenter opposed this proposal.
    121. Text Message. Section 5(a)(7) of the SCA defines ``text 
message'' as having the same meaning as in section 227(e)(8) of the 
Communications Act, and we adopt the same definition consistent with 
our proposal in the Safe Connections NPRM. Section 227(e)(8) defines 
``text message'' as ``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. This 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 definition, as well as ``real-time, two-way voice or video 
communication.'' When the Commission previously interpreted section 
227(e)(8) for purposes of implementation, it adopted a rule that 
mirrors the statutory text, and we do the same here, as proposed in the 
Safe Connections NPRM. No commenter opposed adoption of this 
definition. Similar to our analysis with respect to uncompleted calls, 
out of an abundance of caution in deference to the safety concerns of 
survivors, we will include delivered and undelivered text messages in 
the definition of ``text message.''
    122. Covered Hotline. The SCA 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 adopt this definition, and 
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.''
    123. As an initial matter, we note that in providing these 
clarifications, we 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. Commenters uniformly supported this 
approach. Turning to the specific definition, we conclude that a 
``covered hotline'' need not exclusively provide counseling and 
information to serve domestic violence survivors; for instance, the 
hotline could provide services to individuals in need of other types of 
support unrelated to domestic violence or other related issues under 
the SCA. Such a single subject requirement would be overly restrictive 
and potentially exclude some hotlines that provide essential services 
to domestic violence survivors. Accordingly, we define ``covered 
hotline'' as any hotline that provides counseling and information on 
topics described in the SCA's definition of ``covered hotline'' as more 
than a de minimis portion of the hotline's operations. No commenter 
opposed this approach.
    124. We next conclude that the counseling service associated with 
the pertinent telephone number must be a ``hotline.'' Given the SCA's 
definition of ``covered hotline,'' as well as the potential use of a 
central database of ``covered hotlines'' (calls and text messages which 
would be omitted from customer-facing logs), we interpret ``hotline'' 
generally to mean a telephone number from which counseling and 
information is provided. The SCA appears to acknowledge this by 
equating the adjective ``covered'' to the topics, which, in this case 
are ``domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, sex 
trafficking, severe forms of trafficking in persons, [and] . . . other 
similar act[s].'' 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. We conclude that telephone numbers should 
not be excluded from being ``covered hotlines'' merely because they do 
not serve exclusively as ``hotlines.'' We find that we can best achieve 
the goal of minimizing hotline hesitancy by interpreting ``hotline'' as 
broadly as possible, and therefore interpret it to include numbers on 
which an organization provides anything more than a de minimis amount 
of counseling service and will use this standard as a component in our 
definition of ``covered hotline.'' No commenter opposed this approach 
and several supported it.
    125. The Commission proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM to 
delegate to the Bureau the task of providing further clarification, as 
necessary, of the scope and definition of ``covered hotline,'' in light 
of 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 SCA. We adopt this 
unopposed proposal.
    126. Consumer-Facing Logs of Calls and Text Messages. The SCA does 
not define the term ``consumer-facing logs of calls or text messages.'' 
In light of our goal of minimizing any hesitancy by survivors to 
contact hotlines by preventing abusers from being made aware of 
survivors' calls and text messages to hotlines, we seek to define the 
term as broadly as possible. We therefore define such logs, consistent 
with the proposal in the Safe Connections NPRM, 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 definition includes both oral disclosures of call and text message 
information that would appear in consumer-facing logs of calls and text 
messages (likely through customer service representatives) and written

[[Page 84430]]

disclosures by service providers of individual call or text message 
records. We 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. The 
provisions of the SCA regarding the protection of calls and text 
messages to hotlines appear to apply to call logs under the control of 
pertinent service providers, not logs that might be generated by or 
stored on the wireline or wireless device. Thus, the obligation to 
protect the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines would still 
apply to call and text logs accessed on a smart phone or other device 
through service provider apps or websites. No commenter opposed this 
approach and several supported it.
    127. Wireline Provider of Voice Service. As discussed above, we 
conclude that we should extend the obligation to protect the privacy of 
calls and text messages to hotlines to fixed wireless providers of 
voice service and to fixed satellite providers of voice service, in 
addition to ``covered providers'' and ``wireline providers of voice 
service'' as identified in the SCA. Because including such providers in 
our rules requires new definitions, we conclude that to maintain 
maximum clarity, we should also define the term ``wireline provider of 
voice service.'' Such term is defined neither in the Safe Connections 
Act nor the Communications Act. We adopt as our definition, solely for 
purposes of our rules implementing the Safe Connections Act, as ``a 
provider of voice service that connects customers to its network 
primarily by wire.'' We believe that this definition captures what is 
ordinarily considered to be a ``wireline provider,'' allowing for 
intermediate legs of wireless transport, such as by microwave.
    128. Fixed Wireless Provider of Voice Service. Solely for purposes 
of our rules implementing the Safe Connections Act, we define the term 
``fixed wireless provider of voice service'' to mean ``a provider of 
voice service to customers at fixed locations that connects such 
customers to its network primarily by terrestrial wireless 
transmission.''
    129. Fixed Satellite Provider of Voice Service. Solely for purposes 
of our rules implementing the Safe Connections Act, we define the term 
``fixed satellite provider of voice service'' to mean ``a provider of 
voice service to customers at fixed locations that connects such 
customers to its network primarily by satellite transmission.''
3. Creating and Maintaining the Central Database of Hotlines
    130. The SCA directs the Commission 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, which could be updated monthly and used by providers to 
determine the covered hotline for which they must remove records from 
their customer-facing logs. Commenters strongly supported establishing 
a central database. Establishing a central database will provide 
certainty as to which call-log records are to be suppressed, thus 
fulfilling the SCA's objective to protect survivors while also 
clarifying service providers' compliance obligations.
    131. The record supports either the Commission's or a third party's 
creating and administering the database, but no commenters addressed 
how the costs incurred by a third party administrator would be 
recovered. Parties have made a variety of suggestions for engaging with 
stakeholders, and have noted the complexity of the process. We believe 
that these decisions are worthy of further consideration, and we 
therefore delegate to the Bureau, working in conjunction with the 
Office of the Managing Director (including the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer (OCIO)) and the Office of General Counsel 
(including the Senior Agency Official for Privacy (SAOP)), the matter 
of determining the administrator for the database consistent with the 
determinations we make in this document. We direct the Bureau to 
announce the administrator details, and adopt any necessary rules, 
through a Public Notice or other appropriate means. The Bureau should 
not select an option that would require recovering costs for the 
administrator through an assessment on service providers, as we find 
that such an option would unnecessarily delay establishing the 
database. We also decline at this time to refer technical details of 
the database to the North American Numbering Council (NANC), as 
suggested by CTIA. The Bureau should work with stakeholders as it 
manages the process of selecting an administrator (whether it be self-
provisioned, through a third party, or some combination thereof) and 
establishing the database. If the Bureau later concludes that input 
from the NANC is warranted, it will seek out such input.
    132. In addition, the Commission also delegates authority to the 
Bureau, working in conjunction with the Office of the Managing Director 
(including OCIO) and the Office of General Counsel (including the 
SAOP), to address all administrative and technical matters relating to 
the creation and maintenance of the database that are not prescribed in 
this document. We expect the implementation process could involve 
complex legal, administrative, or technical questions, and we find that 
it is important to retain flexibility to address such issues as they 
arise. This is consistent with the approach the Commission has taken in 
other areas when overseeing the implementation of new programs such as 
the Broadband Data Collection and Robocall Mitigation Database.
    133. We find that the database should always be as comprehensive 
and accurate as possible so as to best fulfill the expectations of 
survivors that their calls and text messages to hotlines will not 
appear in service provider's consumer-facing call logs. In this regard, 
we direct the Bureau to work with experienced stakeholders to help in 
identifying hotlines for the database administrator to include in the 
database, and developing procedures for updating the database; we 
direct the Bureau to establish procedures that will enable submissions 
by both operators of hotlines and from third parties. We likewise 
direct the Bureau to consider how best to verify the accuracy of 
submissions while balancing administrative concerns such as the need to 
initiate use of the database as soon as possible. Should the Bureau 
elect to use a third party to serve as the database administrator, the 
Bureau, not the third party, will have final authority over determining 
whether particular potential database entries are ``covered hotlines.''
    134. While we recognize that comprehensiveness and accuracy are key 
elements in database design and administration, the safety of survivors 
of domestic violence is paramount and should be taken into account in 
all database-related decisions and administration. As a result, we 
conclude that the database should not be made publicly available, as 
proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM. As the NDVH argues, providing 
convenient public access to such a large database of telephone numbers 
through which all manner of domestic violence survivor assistance is 
made available provides opportunities for abusers to interfere with 
survivors' ability to place calls and send texts to hotlines in the 
database by a variety of means, thereby undermining the purpose for 
which we are establishing the database (to enable protection of the 
privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines). While we

[[Page 84431]]

acknowledge, as the Safe Connections NPRM did, that making the database 
publicly available could potentially improve the accuracy of the list 
and be a resource for survivors, we find the benefits of making the 
database publicly available are outweighed by the potential harms to 
survivors as identified by the NDVH.
    135. Consistent with our concerns regarding the sensitivity of the 
database, we direct the Bureau to ensure that access to the full 
database file is available only to covered providers, wireline 
providers of voice service, fixed wireless providers of voice service, 
and fixed satellite providers of voice service through secure means. 
Recognizing the potential value of the database to governmental 
agencies with general subject matter jurisdiction (law enforcement and 
health and human service-type agencies), however, we direct the Bureau 
to also permit such agencies access to the full database file through 
secure means as long as an administratively reasonable method of 
determining eligibility for access can be arranged. Moreover, although 
the database itself will not be publicly accessible, survivors still 
will be able to view the administrator's public website, and we 
therefore direct the Bureau to consider a means by which the 
administrator's website could identify, for survivors' benefit, any 
covered service provider that has been granted a technical-
infeasibility exception from the call-log obligation, as well as any 
service providers that have been granted an extension of the compliance 
deadline. More generally, we encourage the Bureau to consider the 
possibility of designing a limited form of access for survivors to 
determine whether a call that they are about to make or a text that 
they are about to send to a hotline will not appear in a call log. To 
this end, we direct the Bureau to explore creating a web-based lookup 
feature that would allow survivors to determine if a particular number 
appears in the database while, at the same time, preventing such a 
lookup feature being exploited by bad actors to reverse-engineer the 
full list of hotlines. Such a feature may also permit operators of 
hotlines to determine if their number has been properly included.
4. Using the Central Database of Hotlines
    136. Service Provider Compliance Deadline. For ease of discussion, 
we use the term ``compliance deadline'' to refer to the effective date 
of our rules regarding the protection of the privacy of calls and text 
messages to hotlines. The record reflects the urgency of issues faced 
by survivors of domestic abuse. Survivors need to place calls and send 
text messages to hotlines without fear of discovery (and potential 
reprisal) by their abuser as soon as possible as such calls and text 
messages save lives. Further, no party claims that the implementation 
challenges faced by service providers, which in some cases appear to be 
complex, are insurmountable. At the same time, there are important 
administrative milestones on which a successful database rollout 
depends. Although the Commission sought comment in the Safe Connections 
NPRM on how long service providers would take to implement the 
requirements that it proposed, the record has only one specific 
proposal, a request for at least 24 months for smaller carriers. 
Balancing the immediate need to provide help to survivors of domestic 
violence with the potential complexity of implementing systems to 
comply with our consumer-facing call log rules, we believe that 12 
months from the date of publication of this document in the Federal 
Register is a reasonable timeline for all but the smaller service 
providers, particularly because the record lacks evidence that it would 
take such providers longer. We therefore adopt a 12-month compliance 
deadline.
    137. We delegate to the Bureau the responsibility of implementing 
this compliance deadline and communicating with all stakeholders about 
progress towards completing the database, associated milestones, and 
service provider requirements, consistent with the decisions in this 
document. In establishing this timeline, we recognize the need for 
service providers to have the necessary detail as early as possible for 
designing their systems and to be able to test the database files in 
such systems prior to full implementation. In this regard, we also 
establish two milestones affecting the final compliance deadline. 
First, the compliance deadline will be no earlier than eight months 
after the Bureau has published the database download file 
specification, which should be the final detail necessary for service 
providers to complete design of their systems. Second, the compliance 
deadline will be no earlier than two months after the Bureau announces 
that the database administrator has made the initial database download 
file available for testing. In light of the compliance deadline being 
no less than two months after the availability of the initial database 
file for download, we do not condition such deadline on any approval by 
OMB review under the PRA of any data collection necessary to create the 
database. This is because any necessary approval would have to occur 
prior to creation of the initial database file. To the extent that the 
date of either announcement causes the deadline to be later than 12 
months after Federal Register publication, the Bureau should provide 
notice of the new compliance deadline for implementation based on the 
date of the announcement. Given the potential unpredictability of the 
implementation process, including development of the database, we 
delegate authority to the Bureau to extend the compliance deadline as 
necessary. Although we delegate such details to the Bureau, we observe 
that the most likely form of the database file would be comma separated 
value (CSV) formatted with three fields for each database record: (1) a 
seven-digit integer representing a unique record identifier; (2) a ten-
digit integer representing the hotline telephone number; and (3) the 
date, in yyyy/mm/dd format, representing the vintage of database file 
in which the hotline was added to the database.
    138. Thus, for example, if the Bureau's announcement of the 
availability of the initial download file for testing were not to come 
until 11 months after publication of this document in the Federal 
Register, the Bureau would announce that the compliance deadline has 
become 13 months after Federal Register publication--in this example, 
continuing to ensure that service providers have two months to test the 
file. We note that this second database implementation milestone cannot 
be met without a database administrator having been selected and well-
established. Service providers will be assured at least an eight-month 
period between the availability of the database download file 
specification and their compliance deadline. As a result, service 
providers will not be prejudiced by any potential delay introduced by 
deferring the determination of who should administer the database to a 
later decision by the Bureau.
    139. For smaller service providers, we adopt a compliance deadline 
of 18 months from the date of publication of this document in the 
Federal Register to comply with our new rules on consumer-facing call 
logs. We find that granting smaller providers extra implementation time 
is appropriate, given that they may face more resource challenges than 
larger providers in complying with the new rules, and consistent with 
the SCA's charge to the Commission to consider ``factors that may 
impact smaller providers.'' The 18-

[[Page 84432]]

month period is less than the 24 months sought by CCA, but we find that 
our 18-month compliance deadline for small providers properly balances 
the significance of the risks faced by domestic abuse survivors, and 
the benefits of them being able to call hotlines and seek help without 
fear of the abuser accessing their call records, against the 
implementation challenges faced by smaller providers.
    140. We define a small provider as ``a provider that has 100,000 or 
fewer voice service subscriber lines (counting the total of all 
business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and 
aggregated over all of the provider's affiliates).'' We find it 
appropriate to adopt the definition of ``small voice service provider'' 
that the Commission adopted for the purpose of creating a delayed 
deadline for such providers to implement the Commission's call 
authentication rules stemming from the TRACED Act and in defining which 
small service providers are exempt from certain rural call completion 
rules. In both cases, the Commission was establishing rules relating to 
service providers' processing of calls, which is relevant to the rules 
for protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to hotlines, and 
the Commission considered the 100,000-line threshold to appropriately 
balance the need for implementation with the rules with burdens on 
small service providers. We believe that for the same reasons, a 
100,000-line threshold is appropriate here. We reject CCA's proposal to 
define small providers as those that do not provide nationwide service. 
We find that the ``small provider'' definition we adopt is better 
established by Commission precedent, creates more administrative 
certainty as it obviates the need for the Commission to make 
determinations as to what constitutes ``nationwide'' service, and 
fosters technological neutrality given that it will not discriminate 
between wireline providers, none of which have ``nationwide'' service 
areas, and wireless providers, some of which may. CCA claims that the 
Commission has made the nationwide/non-nationwide distinction in public 
safety proceedings, but CCA's cited examples are only to proposals on 
which the Commission sought comment, and, in any event, were not 
seeking to define the term ``small provider,'' a term used in the Safe 
Connections Act.
    141. We recognize that in extending the compliance deadline for 
small service providers, we need to ensure that this translates to 
additional system development time after the data file specification is 
announced. As a result, the compliance deadline for small service 
providers will in no case be earlier than 14 months after the Bureau 
has published the database download file specification, ensuring that 
small service providers will have sufficient time to complete design of 
their systems. Further, exercising an abundance of caution, the 
compliance deadline for small service providers will be no earlier than 
two months after the Bureau announces that the database administrator 
has made the initial database download file available for testing for 
larger service providers.
    142. Creating a later compliance deadline for small service 
providers, however, will lead to a six-month period in which some 
survivors' calls and text messages to hotlines will be omitted from 
call logs (those served by non-small providers) while calls and text 
messages of other survivors (those served by small providers, likely 
the vast minority of survivors) will not. To minimize confusion, we 
direct the Bureau to consider creating a means by which survivors can 
determine on the database administrator's website whether their service 
provider is currently (at the time of inquiry) required to comply with 
the obligation to protect the privacy of calls and text messages to 
hotlines.
    143. We also provide clarity regarding the relationship between 
compliance deadlines and the dates of particular calls and text 
messages that may be subject to our rules. We recognize that service 
providers may maintain two kinds of relevant call logs: (1) online 
consumer-facing logs, and (2) consumers' bills (whether electronic or 
paper), which we also consider to be logs. We also recognize that, as 
of a service provider's compliance deadline, the service provider's 
online consumer-facing logs will include records of calls and text 
messages from prior to the compliance deadline--and, in the ordinary 
course of business, such service provider may continue to make such 
online logs of pre-compliance deadline calls and text messages 
available for potentially multiple months. These online call logs may 
be difficult to retroactively revise. Similarly, we acknowledge that 
consumers' bills that pertain exclusively to periods before the 
compliance deadline may remain available on service providers' websites 
on and after the compliance deadline. Not only might it be difficult 
for service providers to retroactively revise such bills, but such 
bills may have already been emailed or physically mailed to the account 
holder.
    144. Balancing these considerations, we establish the following 
requirements. With respect to online consumer-facing logs, we clarify 
that, after a service provider's compliance deadline, such logs may 
continue to display records of calls and text messages to hotlines that 
were placed or sent prior to a service provider's compliance deadline. 
That same service provider's online consumer-facing logs, however, must 
omit calls and text messages to hotlines that were placed or sent on or 
after the compliance deadline. With respect to consumers' bills, we 
clarify that bills for periods exclusively before the compliance 
deadline need not omit calls placed to and text messages sent to 
hotlines omitted. For bills that include calls and text messages both 
before and after the compliance deadline, service providers need only 
omit calls placed to and text messages sent to hotlines on or after the 
compliance deadline. Service providers are also welcome to voluntarily 
omit such calls and texts for all days in such bills. Bills exclusively 
for periods on or after the compliance deadline must fully comply with 
our rules. With regard to other written and oral disclosures of 
information regarding calls placed to and text messages sent to 
hotlines, our rules apply only to such calls and text messages placed 
or sent on or after the compliance deadline.
    145. Database Updates. As proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM and 
consistent with the SCA, we require service providers to download the 
central database once it is established, and thereafter to download 
updates from the central database once per calendar month. This is 
necessary to ensure service providers stay up to date on the covered 
hotlines in order to abide by their call-log removal duties. We 
anticipate new covered hotlines will be added to, and potentially 
removed from, the central database on an ongoing basis, so regular 
downloading of the updated database will be necessary. Commenters 
broadly supported a monthly download requirement, which strikes a 
balance between requiring providers to stay current but not requiring 
constant updates. To make updates easier, we direct the Bureau to work 
with the database administrator to set a fixed date each month (for 
example, the 1st or 15th of the month) when it will update the 
database, so providers can schedule their monthly downloads of the 
updated database accordingly. Service providers will be required to 
download and implement their monthly downloaded updates in their 
systems within 15 days of the

[[Page 84433]]

release of these new monthly updates. We decline USTelecom's request to 
permit providers to perform database updates ``any time within the 
month after the central database is updated.'' Because we do not 
believe manual updates will be required, as USTelecom posits, we find 
that 15 days will be sufficient for providers to download the necessary 
updates for use in their systems.
    146. Penalties, Safe Harbor, and Interplay With Other Laws and 
Regulations. We conclude that we should not establish special penalties 
for violations of our rules pertaining to protecting the privacy of 
calls and text messages to hotlines. We believe that the relative 
novelty of the requirements that we establish make appropriate 
penalties difficult to assess in advance and are likely, at least 
initially, to be best assessed on a case-by-case basis. Thus, we 
conclude that, contrary to EPIC et al.'s suggestion, we should rely on 
pre-existing penalties and enforcement mechanisms, but will revisit 
this topic in the future if such mechanisms prove to be insufficient.
    147. Some service providers have raised concerns about facing civil 
liability for unintentional errors or failures in removing calls and 
text messages to covered hotlines from their call logs, and recommended 
the Commission establish a ``safe harbor'' in this area. As an initial 
matter, we note that the SCA already establishes a safe harbor from 
civil liability for providers that update their databases every 30 days 
to match the Commission's central database. The rules that we establish 
make clear that covered providers, wireline providers of voice service, 
fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed satellite 
providers of voice service need omit from consumer-facing call and text 
logs only calls and text messages to numbers that appear in the 
database. Thus, as long as these providers are faithfully downloading 
updates to the database and have properly implemented systems for 
redacting calls and text messages to such numbers from consumer-facing 
call logs, they will not be in violation of our rules. Put another way, 
such providers will not have an independent duty to authenticate and 
verify the accuracy of the central database.
    148. Commenters have raised examples of laws and regulations that 
service providers might arguably violate through their compliance with 
the privacy rules that we establish for the protection of calls and 
text messages to hotlines. In response, and consistent with the 
principle that subsequent, more specific statutes control in the event 
of a conflict with earlier broader statutes, we make clear our intent 
that the rules we adopt here to implement the SCA supersede any 
conflicting requirements in the Communications Act, other Commission 
rules, or state requirements. This would include the requirement in 
section 222(c)(2) of the Act that a telecommunications carrier disclose 
CPNI to the customer upon request. However, we remind parties that 
pursuant to section 5(b)(3)(C) of the SCA, the rules that we adopt in 
this document pertaining to the protection of calls and text messages 
to hotlines do not alter service provider obligations under CALEA.
    149. We decline to adopt a number of requests and recommendations 
put forth by EPIC et al. pertaining to matters that extend beyond 
implementation of the SCA. For example, EPIC et al. asks that we 
require providers to help survivors detect/delete stalkerware from 
phones and investigate dual-use tracking apps that can double as 
stalkerware, compile list sources of Commission authority over 
stalkerware. We decline to adopt these proposals, which fall outside 
the scope of the SCA and Safe Connections NPRM and raise complex issues 
on which we have no record other than EPIC et al.'s request.

C. Emergency Communications Support for Survivors

    150. We designate the Lifeline program as the program that will 
provide emergency communications support for survivors. As further 
detailed below, we also define financial hardship to allow survivors to 
receive this support, establish the application and enrollment 
processes for qualifying survivors, and address additional 
implementation challenges.
1. The Designated Program for Emergency Communications Support
    151. The SCA requires the Commission to designate either the 
Lifeline program or the Affordable Connectivity Program to provide 
emergency communications support to survivors who have pursued the line 
separation process and are suffering from financial hardship, 
regardless of whether the survivor might otherwise meet the designated 
program's eligibility requirements. Given this requirement and the 
record before us, we designate the Lifeline program to provide 
emergency communications support to impacted survivors. The Lifeline 
program allows participants to receive discounts on voice-only service, 
broadband service, or bundled service. The ACP does not allow consumers 
to receive a discount on voice-only services. We believe the 
flexibility offered by the Lifeline program to support voice-only 
services makes the program uniquely valuable for survivors, who may be 
experiencing significant disruption in their lives and need the ability 
to choose a voice-only service to help them reach other social support 
services.
    152. While ``emergency communications support'' is not defined by 
the SCA, 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. We note that one 
commenter suggested that the Commission allow survivors to choose 
either the ACP or Lifeline. We do not believe we have the authority to 
pursue that option given the SCA's specific direction to designate a 
``single program.'' In addition, in its comments, the National Lifeline 
Association (NaLA) also advocated for additional Lifeline reforms 
including increasing the Lifeline support amount, acting on pending 
Lifeline compliance plans and petitions for Eligible Telecommunications 
Carrier (ETC) designation, eliminating minimum service standards for 
Lifeline service, expanding Lifeline to support consumer devices, 
limiting Lifeline subscribers' ability to transfer their benefit, and 
limiting provider liability for noncompliance with our rules. As these 
issues are not the focus of this proceeding and were not raised in the 
Safe Connections NPRM, we decline to address them in the Report and 
Order.
    153. Particularly in light of the SCA's focus on enabling survivors 
to establish connections independent from their abusers, we recognize 
the importance of allowing qualifying survivors to choose to apply 
their emergency communications support benefit to a voice-only option. 
Voice services are ubiquitous and provide reliable access for reaching 
necessary support services and, if necessary, accessing emergency 
services. Additionally, real-time human voice communications can 
provide connection, comfort, and reassurance to the survivor during a 
time of upheaval and new challenges. By designating Lifeline as the 
emergency communications support program under the SCA, we enable 
survivors to maintain their voice-only service connection if they so 
choose.
    154. In addition to voice services, Lifeline also provides 
discounts on broadband services, which may be equally essential in 
different ways to many survivors as they research support services for 
assistance as they flee their

[[Page 84434]]

abusers. While both Lifeline and the ACP allow consumers to receive 
bundled support, the Lifeline program offers the greatest flexibility 
for survivors. As such, by selecting the Lifeline program, we are 
providing survivors with the option to access either or both of these 
crucial communications services, broadband and voice, giving survivors 
the security and autonomy we believe that Congress intended with the 
Safe Connections Act.
    155. The maximum Lifeline discount for voice-only services is 
currently set at $5.25, and further phasedown in that support level is 
currently paused. To ensure the designated program best serves 
qualifying survivors, we believe that the Lifeline program should offer 
survivors the maximum base Lifeline discount, even for voice-only 
services. As noted in the Safe Connections NPRM, we also believe that 
survivors receiving emergency communications support should be able to 
benefit from the Lifeline program's enhanced Tribal benefit if they 
reside on qualifying Tribal lands. As such, we modify our rules at 
Sec.  54.403 to allow survivors to receive support of up to $9.25 per 
month for all qualifying Lifeline services and up to a $34.25 monthly 
discount on Lifeline-supported services for survivors residing on 
qualifying Tribal lands. Regardless of any future changes to the 
reimbursement amount for voice-only services in the Lifeline program, 
we believe that survivors' needs present a unique situation that should 
permit survivors choosing voice-only plans to receive the full Lifeline 
reimbursement amount for which they are eligible. This level of support 
will be limited to the survivor's six-month emergency communications 
support period. If a survivor is eligible to participate in the 
Lifeline program beyond their initial emergency support period, and 
they choose to subscribe to a voice-only plan, then they will receive 
the voice-only discount applicable for all non-Tribal Lifeline 
subscribers, which is currently $5.25. Survivors on qualifying Tribal 
lands still qualify for the enhanced Tribal benefit.
    156. USTelecom urges the Commission to limit this enhanced support 
opportunity for voice-only services to only mobile wireless service 
plans. We decline to adopt such a limitation. The SCA requires that 
survivors pursue a line separation request that meets the requirements 
under section 345(c)(1) before receiving emergency communications 
support, but it does not limit the type of service that a survivor can 
then receive after completing that line separation request. 
Additionally, the SCA's direction to the Commission to designate either 
the Lifeline program or the ACP, which both allow eligible households 
to apply their benefit to fixed service, indicates that survivors 
enrolling in the designated program pursuant to the SCA should be 
afforded the same choice. We also believe that imposing this suggested 
limitation would not serve the public interest. Further, we believe 
that the implementation concerns raised by USTelecom will be minimized 
by our direction to USAC to identify survivor enrollments in its 
systems, which will not only allow service providers to treat survivor 
information with heightened sensitivity, but will also give service 
providers the appropriate insight necessary to determine whether a 
consumer is a survivor eligible to receive up to $9.25 in support for 
voice-only services.
    157. We note that some commenters expressed support for the ACP as 
the designated program because it offers a higher monthly benefit 
amount. While we certainly recognize that as an advantage of the ACP, 
we believe that the Lifeline program overall offers the better longer-
term solution for survivors because of its ability to support voice-
only services and because of its stable funding source. We also believe 
that our efforts to expand the Lifeline benefit amount for voice-only 
support help to address the concerns raised by these commenters 
regarding the difference in the program benefit amounts.
    158. In addition to being unable to support voice-only services, 
the ACP has a finite source of funds and its continuation is dependent 
upon additional congressional appropriations. Therefore, the ACP does 
not present the same long-term funding stability as the Lifeline 
program. Consumers eligible for the Lifeline program are also eligible 
to participate in the ACP, pursuant to the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act), and the amendments to the Lifeline 
rules that we make in this document preserve that option for survivors 
enrolling in Lifeline pursuant to the SCA as well. We believe it is 
appropriate, however, to limit this combined Lifeline and ACP support 
to the emergency communications support period of six months because 
adhering to the time limitation is consistent with both the language 
and intent of the SCA. This will protect program integrity and target 
limited funding where it is most needed. Survivors will have the 
opportunity to confirm their eligibility to participate in Lifeline 
and/or ACP under each respective program's existing eligibility 
criteria as they approach the end of their emergency support periods, 
as detailed below.
    159. Some commenters identified the Lifeline program's requirement 
that service providers be designated as Eligible Telecommunications 
Carriers (ETC) as a drawback of designating the Lifeline program for 
emergency communications support, with one commenter briefly suggesting 
that the Commission exempt carriers from the ETC requirement to allow 
more service providers to support survivors in the emergency 
communications period. The ETC requirement is a statutory requirement 
and cannot be waived. The ETC requirement is also a critical oversight 
component of the Communications Act, and the record here does not 
include the level of analysis required for us to consider whether 
forbearance would be appropriate or warranted. Furthermore, as we 
discussed above regarding line separations, the Safe Connections Act 
prohibits providers from limiting or preventing survivors from porting 
their line to another service provider. Therefore, survivors have the 
ability to port their line to a service provider that is designated as 
an ETC. Survivors will be able to receive the intended emergency 
support by receiving service from ETCs in the Lifeline program. Any 
service provider that is not currently an ETC but wishes to support 
survivors eligible for benefits under the SCA can do so by obtaining 
designation as a Lifeline-only ETC from the relevant state commission 
or the Commission, as applicable, and we encourage providers to do so. 
Providers participating in the ACP are not required to be ETCs. Because 
we permit survivors that qualify for emergency communications support 
through Lifeline to enroll in ACP, survivors benefitting from emergency 
communications support through ACP can receive ACP service from non-
ETCs in addition to Lifeline service from an ETC.
    160. In the Safe Connections NPRM we sought comment on the impact 
of the designated program's benefit as it pertains to survivors' access 
to devices. There was limited discussion of this issue among 
commenters, but some commenters advocated for support for devices 
through the SCA designated program or suggested that the Commission 
take steps to incentivize service providers to provide devices to 
survivors. Historically, the Lifeline program has not generally 
supported devices, and on balance here, we believe it would be 
appropriate to continue focusing Lifeline funding on the subscriber's 
service offering. This approach is consistent with the Commission's 
long-standing approach

[[Page 84435]]

in other universal service programs, which also do not fund end-user 
devices. One commenter suggested that the Commission should create a 
pilot device program for survivors, but we believe that the limited 
duration of emergency communications support cautions against funding 
devices. We are aware that certain providers and community 
organizations have provided survivors with access to free devices, and 
we are supportive of those efforts, but we do not believe it would be 
appropriate to support devices for survivors through the Lifeline 
program. Although the Lifeline program does not offer support for 
devices, if survivors who qualify for the Lifeline program use that 
qualification to enroll in the ACP, then they may avail themselves of 
the connected device benefit available under the ACP.
2. Defining Financial Hardship
    161. As proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM, we define 
``financial hardship'' to largely mirror the ACP's eligibility 
requirements as outlined in the Infrastructure Act. Defining financial 
hardship in this way gives survivors greater flexibility to confirm 
their status, and we hope that this more expansive definition for 
financial hardship will enable greater participation for survivors. 
Consumers can qualify to participate in the ACP if they participate in 
certain Federal assistance programs or if their household income is at 
or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. These eligibility 
standards are more expansive than the standards used by the Lifeline 
program, which allows consumers to qualify for the program through 
participation in fewer Federal assistance programs or if their 
household income is at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. 
We believe that adopting this more expansive approach in our definition 
of financial hardship allows the emergency communications support 
effort to reach a wider range of survivors, as contemplated by the SCA. 
Indeed, Congress noted in its findings that survivors often face 
significant financial insecurity. In adopting this approach, however, 
we decline to allow survivors who participate in a provider's existing 
low-income program, which are based on the provider's own eligibility 
criteria, to use that participation as a basis for demonstrating 
financial hardship. The Lifeline program has not historically relied on 
provider-specific eligibility criteria, and the record does not provide 
a basis for concluding that such programs are prevalent among Lifeline 
providers, or that these programs would be a predominant qualifying 
program for survivors given the other expansive qualifying criteria.
    162. With the definition of financial hardship that we adopt in 
this document, we believe that we are aligning with the spirit of the 
congressional findings in the SCA and commenter concerns in our record. 
We also note that in addition to demonstrating financial hardship, 
survivors are also required by the SCA to meet the requirements of 
section 345(c)(1), which details the process for a survivor completing 
a line separation request. We anticipate that the documentation 
confirming submission of a valid and completed line separation request 
as detailed above will be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that 
survivors seeking to receive emergency communications support must have 
pursued a line separation request and, when paired with some 
substantiation of financial hardship, will allow us to ensure 
compliance with the SCA's limitations for receiving emergency 
communications support.
    163. Though there are no significant comments in the record 
offering a specific definition of financial hardship, there is some 
support among commenters for the Commission implementing an approach 
that would presume that all survivors suffer financial hardship. We 
decline to implement this approach. Although (as noted) Congress found 
in the SCA that ``survivors often lack meaningful support and options 
when establishing independence from an abuser, including barriers such 
as financial insecurity,'' that finding indicates that not all 
survivors face financial hardship. A presumption of financial hardship 
for all survivors for purposes of qualifying for emergency 
communications support would be inconsistent with this finding. In 
addition, and most critically, the SCA specifically states that 
survivors may qualify for emergency communications support if the 
survivor attempts a line separation request with their communications 
service provider and they are suffering financial hardship. A 
presumption of financial hardship for all consumers applying for the 
Lifeline benefit through the SCA would fail to give effect to the 
second qualification prong established by the statute, and would also 
pose an unacceptable risk to the program's integrity. We therefore do 
not adopt such a presumption, but we take steps to streamline the 
application process for survivors seeking to qualify for emergency 
communications support.
    164. As further discussed below, we believe that the use of the 
National Verifier for all applications for emergency communications 
support will allow for the most streamlined process for survivors and 
will best protect program integrity by ensuring a unified review 
process. As our definition of financial hardship will largely align 
with the eligibility standards for the ACP, the National Verifier and 
its connections to relevant state databases may allow for automatic 
confirmation of a survivor's financial hardship status. In instances 
where an individual's eligibility cannot be determined through these 
database connections, however, we believe that it is appropriate to 
allow survivors to self-certify their financial hardship in the 
National Verifier. By allowing self-certification of financial 
hardship, we recognize that survivors often lack access to financial 
documentation to verify their financial hardship and could place 
themselves in danger if they made an attempt to access such 
documentation. Currently, if a consumer cannot automatically confirm 
their participation in a qualifying Federal assistance program through 
USAC's database checks, then they must submit appropriate documentation 
to USAC that demonstrates their participation in the relevant program. 
The SCA, however, requires that the Commission allow survivors' 
entrance into the designated program regardless of their ability to 
otherwise participate in the program. With a self-certification 
approach, we offer that greater flexibility and also protect program 
integrity by securing a self-certification under penalty of perjury 
from the survivor. By combining a self-certification approach with the 
use of the National Verifier, we can reduce the barriers of 
participation for survivors and help survivors access the benefits of 
the designated program ``as quickly as is feasible.'' To implement this 
process, we direct the Bureau to work with USAC to develop standardized 
self-certification documentation and implement changes to USAC's 
application workflows to allow for survivors from across the United 
States to easily enter the program through the National Verifier. In 
implementing the application and certification process, we direct the 
Bureau and USAC to ensure that those processes are appropriately 
accommodating and user-friendly for survivors while still protecting 
program integrity.
    165. We believe that concerns about the risks of a self-
certification approach to program integrity are mitigated by the 
statutory limitation of emergency communications support to survivors 
who are seeking to separate a line from

[[Page 84436]]

a shared mobile service contract and meet the line separation 
requirements discussed above, and the temporary nature of the emergency 
communications support benefit. First, the SCA mandates that survivors 
seeking to receive emergency communications support through the 
designated program also demonstrate that they have met the line 
separation requirements of section 345(c)(1). That statutory 
requirement means that survivors will have to compile and submit 
documentation of their abuse in order to pursue a line separation 
request. Satisfying such an obligation will protect Lifeline program 
integrity, as survivors should be a small subset of the overall 
population, and those receiving emergency communications support will 
be an even smaller subset of those survivors as these survivors would 
have to pursue a line separation request and be suffering financial 
hardship. Second, the SCA limits survivor participation in the 
designated program to six months, also limiting the potential impact on 
the Lifeline program's resources. Between these two requirements for 
receiving emergency communications support, we believe that permitting 
self-certification for the financial hardship component strikes the 
best balance between program integrity concerns and ensuring that 
survivors have access to vital connectivity services.
    166. One commenter suggested that if the Commission adopted a self-
certification approach for survivors documenting their financial 
hardship, then the Commission should determine that National Verifier 
review of such documentation provides an ``ironclad safe harbor for 
service providers.'' We decline to adopt this approach. The National 
Verifier relies on the information it receives from service providers, 
and while it is an important tool for protecting program integrity, to 
say that approval by the National Verifier creates a safe harbor for 
provider activity would open the program to potential service provider 
abuse. Service providers remain responsible for implementing policies 
that ensure compliance with the Lifeline program's rules, and this 
includes, among other things, implementing policies that ensure that 
information received by the National Verifier is accurate. The 
Commission has never intended for the National Verifier to be a safe 
harbor, and we do not believe that it would be appropriate to implement 
such an approach here. If service provider policies, when implemented 
in conjunction with the National Verifier, are found to be inadequate 
for ensuring that a subscriber is eligible to receive Lifeline service, 
then such service provider may be subject to recovery action from USAC 
or forfeiture efforts from the Commission's Enforcement Bureau.
    167. In the Safe Connections NPRM, we sought comment on how we 
might be able to address survivors with a temporary financial hardship. 
These are survivors who might have a reliable source of income that 
would otherwise not qualify them to meet our definition of financial 
hardship but may be facing a short-term, acute financial strain as a 
result of experiencing or escaping domestic violence or abuse. We 
received no specific comments on how we might treat survivors suffering 
temporary financial hardship. While we understand the challenges that 
these individuals might encounter, we do not believe it would be 
appropriate to allow entry into the program based only on a position of 
temporary financial hardship. In the case of a temporary financial 
hardship, a benefit that extends for six months could significantly 
outlast the subscriber's actual financial hardship and see the program 
supporting an individual with significant financial resources. Making 
the emergency communications support available in that situation would 
be inconsistent with the conditions established in the SCA and would be 
an ineffective use of limited USF funding. We also do not have a 
reliable way of confirming temporary financial hardship, so 
implementing such an approach would raise significant program integrity 
concerns. For these reasons, we decline to define financial hardship to 
include temporary financial hardship.
3. Program Application and Enrollment
    168. In the Safe Connections NPRM, we proposed that survivors 
entering the designated program be required to use the National 
Verifier to have their eligibility to participate in the program 
confirmed by USAC. We adopt this proposal and direct USAC to allow for 
such an approach for survivors living in all states, including the 
National Lifeline Accountability Database (NLAD) opt-out States of 
California, Texas, and Oregon. There was limited discussion of this 
issue in the record, but NaLA and USTelecom both supported such an 
approach. We believe that this approach will create a more streamlined 
application and enrollment experience for survivors. It will also allow 
USAC to better protect program integrity. USAC will be able to develop 
a greater understanding of the material provided by service providers 
after an attempted line separation request, and, therefore, is in the 
best position to verify the validity of line separation request 
documentation. USAC will also be able to act as a centralized 
repository for this information, minimizing the potential for data 
leakages compared to having this information reviewed by both USAC and 
a state administrator. As noted above, survivors will be able to 
leverage the database connections that the National Verifier uses to 
confirm program participation when seeking to confirm their financial 
hardship status. Finally, by requiring survivors to apply through the 
National Verifier, we ensure more consistent messaging to survivors and 
review standards for all documentation. To this end, we direct USAC to 
explore avenues for ensuring that application information and materials 
are made available to survivors in a variety of different formats and 
languages. In adopting this approach, we do not remove any of the 
existing channels by which consumers can be supported in their Lifeline 
application process.
    169. In applying for emergency communications support through the 
National Verifier, we believe that the current amount of personal 
information collected for enrollment into the Lifeline program is 
generally appropriate. This information allows USAC to confirm that 
individuals are who they say they are--and by collecting the last four 
digits of an applicant's or subscriber's Social Security number or 
Tribal Identification number, that process can often be completed 
automatically. That automated confirmation often allows subscribers to 
provide less documentation than if they were required to confirm their 
identity through a manual review process. Some survivor advocates 
called for either omitting survivor identifiers or using alternative 
identifiers, and to avoid using Social Security numbers whenever 
possible. We find that requiring only the last four digits of an 
applicant's Social Security number will balance the legitimate 
interests in protecting the safety and security of survivors while also 
adequately verifying survivors' identities. Given the similar program 
integrity concerns and significant administrative challenges, we also 
decline to modify the information collected from survivors to permit 
alias names as EPIC suggests.
    170. We understand, however, that current address information is 
extremely sensitive information for survivors escaping domestic 
violence or abuse. Unlike a survivor's name or the

[[Page 84437]]

last four digits of their Social Security number, if address 
information is disclosed it could imminently allow an abuser to locate 
a survivor, and because of this risk, survivors may not reside at one 
location or have a fixed address. A survivor also may be hesitant to 
seek emergency communications support if they believe doing so could 
risk disclosing their location to an abuser. In light of these unique 
risks, we will allow survivors to submit prior address information from 
within the last six months on their Lifeline applications, thereby 
giving survivors the opportunity to shield their current address 
information and to confirm their identity automatically. By requiring a 
survivor's name, the last four digits of their Social Security Number, 
and a relatively recent address, we may have enough information to 
allow USAC to automatically confirm the survivor's identity without 
further information. At the same time, by allowing survivors to submit 
prior address information where possible, we acknowledge and 
accommodate the critical privacy and safety concern of survivors and 
survivor advocacy organizations in protecting the current location 
information of survivors. However, if it is not possible to confirm the 
survivor's identity in this manner, then the survivor will need to 
submit their documentation manually and should rely on their current 
address in such instances.
    171. Having current address information better allows USAC to 
conduct consumer outreach and prevent against duplicate household 
enrollment, but we believe that affording flexibility to apply with 
prior address information is appropriate for survivors. We confirm, 
however, that USAC should not modify its practices for protecting the 
program against enrolling duplicate households. In instances where the 
survivor's submitted address indicates a potential duplicate 
enrollment, that survivor will need to complete the Lifeline program's 
Household Worksheet. This approach should allow for authentication of a 
survivor's identity, while also speaking to concerns of commenters 
related to protecting program integrity. Finally, during the emergency 
communications support period, enrolled survivors will not be required 
to comply with the current requirement in the Lifeline program's rules 
that subscribers must update their address within 30 days of moving.
    172. In the Safe Connections NPRM, we sought comment on how we 
might collect information from survivors when they are applying or 
enrolling in the designated program. It does not appear that the 
Commission's forms and other documents require significant changes to 
account for survivors, and we did not receive any specific feedback 
from commenters suggesting changes to the forms. However, we do believe 
that there will need to be some minor refinements to account for 
survivors' entry into the emergency communications support program. To 
that end, we direct the Bureau and USAC, in coordination with the 
Office of General Counsel, as necessary, to consider and adopt 
appropriate revisions to the relevant forms. We expect that the Bureau 
and USAC will work to update the forms to request confirmation of a 
survivor's line separation request, consistent with the documentation 
that service providers will give to survivors. We also expect similar 
updates regarding the submission of material to demonstrate financial 
hardship. Finally, we direct the Bureau and USAC to include in 
appropriate program forms information soliciting communications 
preferences, so that survivors can make clear how USAC should contact 
them in the future. This may be particularly helpful for survivors who 
do not wish to receive mail at their address. Survivors should be given 
options for such outreach such as physical mail, email, text messaging, 
and Interactive Voice Response (IVR).
    173. We also do not believe that any significant changes need to be 
made to the enrollment process and the information that is provided to 
survivors to share with their service provider for enrolling in the 
program or the information that is shared between USAC's systems and 
service providers through any API connections that might exist. We 
direct USAC to make the necessary system changes to flag survivor 
entries in its systems so that service providers are aware of a 
survivor's status and treat such information with heightened 
sensitivity. While we decline to prescribe specifics at this time, we 
also direct the Bureau and USAC to implement enhancements as they deem 
appropriate to protect survivor information that is shared with service 
providers. We strongly encourage service providers to take steps 
similar to those taken in this document around address submission in 
their systems, and we remind service providers of their obligations 
under the confidentiality rules we adopt in this document, as well as 
section 222 of the Communications Act and the Commission's Customer 
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) rules when it comes to survivor 
privacy.
    174. General Program Requirements. As proposed in the Safe 
Connections NPRM, the Lifeline program's general rules and requirements 
will remain largely in effect for survivors and service providers. Any 
areas where there might be confusion between the existing Lifeline 
program's general rules and the rules meant to implement the SCA have 
been specifically addressed in our amendments to the Lifeline program's 
rules. There were no commenters that addressed this concern 
specifically in the context of the designated program for emergency 
communications support. However, several commenters had more open-ended 
statements suggesting that the Commission should clearly articulate 
that rules meant to implement the SCA should supersede existing program 
rules. Because we amend our Lifeline program rules to incorporate our 
actions in this document taken pursuant to the SCA, we do not need to 
issue such a blanket statement to address provider concerns. Where we 
have not acted to specifically address the SCA changes adopted in this 
document, we expect that the Lifeline program's rules remain 
appropriate as applied to survivors seeking emergency communications 
support, and Lifeline providers should continue to comply with the 
program rules, including the amendments we make through this document.
    175. Perhaps most significantly, we do not modify any of the 
Lifeline program's usage requirements for survivors receiving emergency 
communications support. We do not believe that the rationale for those 
requirements, namely ensuring that limited program resources go to 
individuals that truly need the service, is less compelling when 
applied to survivors. NaLA urges the Commission to eliminate the 
program's usage requirement and contends that survivors may value any 
communications access they receive as an ``emergency phone,'' which we 
interpret to mean a phone or device that may not be used by the 
survivor. As explained above, we do not believe that adopting such an 
understanding would result in the best usage of the limited financial 
resources available to the Lifeline program. We also decline to change 
the Lifeline program's limit of one benefit per household. While 
``survivor'' is defined as inclusive of an individual caring for 
another individual against whom a covered act has been committed, we 
view such a situation as inclusive of our current definition of 
household. We did not receive significant comments expressing concerns 
with this portion of the Lifeline rules or identifying any potential 
challenges that survivors

[[Page 84438]]

might encounter were we to continue to adhere to the one per household 
limitation. Finally, we allow survivors to enter the Lifeline program 
while requiring that service providers adhere to the program's existing 
record retention and audit rules. We have not received any specific 
concerns indicating how tensions might arise from the need to adhere to 
these requirements while serving survivors.
4. Additional Program Concerns
    176. In the Safe Connections NPRM, we raised a number of concerns 
dealing with how survivors can take advantage of the benefit and how 
low-income survivors might be transitioned to longer-term participation 
in the program after their emergency support runs its course. As 
proposed in the Safe Connections NPRM, we will permit survivors 
receiving emergency communications support to receive six monthly 
benefits from the Lifeline program and by extension the ACP in 
accordance with the SCA. While we expect that this support will largely 
be provided in a single six-month time frame, we do not believe it 
would be appropriate to limit survivors to such a requirement. As such, 
we direct USAC to implement processes and procedures for tracking the 
emergency communications support provided to survivors to ensure that 
they do not receive more than six months of emergency communications 
support tied to a single line separation, even if that support is not 
provided in a single six-month block of time. We also do not believe 
that we need to place any limitations on the ability of survivors to 
change their service, as available to any other Lifeline subscriber, 
during this time period. To ensure the smooth operation of this effort, 
we strongly encourage service providers to file claims for 
reimbursement for emergency communications support provided to 
survivors on a monthly basis. Service providers are permitted to submit 
claims for reimbursement for Lifeline service within one year, but in 
the context of emergency communications support, timely claim 
submission allows USAC to accurately track and apprise survivors and 
service providers of the status of the survivor's remaining available 
emergency communications support.
    177. The SCA is silent on whether emergency communications support 
can be received more than once in a survivor's lifetime, but survivor 
advocates expressed support for allowing survivors to participate in 
the program beyond an initial six-month period if appropriate. To best 
support survivors, we allow a survivor to receive multiple periods of 
emergency communications support through the designated program if each 
period is paired with proof of completion of a new line separation 
process. With the SCA silent on this exact issue, we believe that the 
requirement that any further emergency support be paired with a new 
line separation request, as adopted here, is consistent with the 
statute and sufficiently supports survivors who need to leave abusive 
situations more than once in their lives while ensuring the benefits 
are not unjustifiably expanded beyond the six-month period prescribed 
by the SCA. We believe that this approach reflects the realities of 
survivors' situations while also ensuring the protection of the 
designated program and adhering to the requirements of the SCA. Any 
process established by USAC to ensure survivors' compliance with the 
six-month period of support should account for situations where a 
survivor may need to re-enter the designated program for a new 
emergency support period tied to a new line separation request and 
demonstration of financial hardship, in accordance with the rules 
adopted in this document.
    178. The SCA specifically contemplates that survivors may wish to 
continue to receive support from the designated program beyond their 
initial support period if they can qualify for the underlying program. 
Because USAC will process initial applications and enrollments into the 
emergency support program, we believe that USAC will be well-positioned 
to handle this transition for survivors eligible to continue to receive 
Lifeline and/or ACP benefits after their emergency communications 
support period has finished. We therefore adopt a process to allow 
survivors who wish to continue in the program to demonstrate their 
eligibility to do so. We note that survivors going through this process 
must meet the standard eligibility requirements for participation in 
Lifeline and/or the ACP.
    179. To support longer-term low-income survivor enrollment and to 
ease customer transition efforts, we direct USAC to notify a survivor 
receiving emergency communications support approximately 75 days before 
the period of emergency support is meant to expire. Prior to this 
notification, USAC will attempt to verify the survivor's eligibility 
through its automated eligibility database check process. If the 
survivor's eligibility can be automatically confirmed through this 
process, USAC's outreach to the survivor will notify them that they are 
eligible to continue receiving the Lifeline benefit and will continue 
to do so with their current provider unless they de-enroll or transfer 
their benefit to a different Lifeline provider. If USAC cannot confirm 
a survivor's eligibility through its automated database checks, then 
USAC will notify the survivor that they can continue to participate in 
the program if they meet the Lifeline program's eligibility 
requirements and submit documentation to confirm their eligibility to 
participate. USAC will notify the survivor of this change in status 
through written communication, either through email, written letter, 
text messaging, or other automated process as appropriate. Where 
possible, this outreach should also align with a survivor's expressed 
contact preferences. USAC's communication will also make the survivor 
aware of any changes in their benefit amount that might result from the 
transition from emergency communications support, in which a survivor 
may receive the full base Lifeline support for a voice-only plan, to 
the standard Lifeline support amounts for voice-only service. Any 
potential change to the voice-only support from the survivor option of 
$9.25 to the standard Lifeline reimbursement amount of $5.25 should be 
communicated to survivors so they are aware of the change and can 
pursue an alternative plan if so desired. For survivors who take 
advantage of their Lifeline participation to enroll in the ACP, this 
outreach will also provide information on qualifying for ACP longer-
term, and the general differences between the programs in eligibility 
requirements and features.
    180. In responding to this outreach for continued support, 
survivors must confirm their eligibility in accordance with the 
existing requirements for entry into the Lifeline program--that is, a 
self-certification of financial hardship will not be sufficient to 
confirm long-term eligibility to participate in Lifeline. USAC largely 
follows the documentation requirements applied by our rules to service 
providers when assessing documentation used for enrollment and 
recertification in the Lifeline program. This approach is consistent 
with the SCA. Throughout this process, service providers may contact 
survivors as they might through the regular continued eligibility or 
recertification process, in addition to USAC-led outreach. Similarly, 
survivors that rely on their enrollment in Lifeline through the 
emergency communications support process to qualify for ACP will also 
be required to demonstrate that they are eligible to remain in ACP. We 
encourage such outreach to be

[[Page 84439]]

respectful of survivors' communications preferences and the sensitive 
nature of their personal information. Finally, consistent with our 
standard processes, survivors who are unable to confirm their 
eligibility to continue to participate in the Lifeline program should 
have their de-enrollment from the Lifeline program processed by USAC 
within five business days of the end of their six-month period of 
emergency participation. This de-enrollment requirement also applies 
where a survivor used their Lifeline enrollment through emergency 
communications support processes to qualify for and enroll in the ACP.
    181. Privacy Concerns. Under the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal 
Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), and applicable 
guidance, the Commission and USAC have strong privacy protections in 
place for the information collected in the administration of the 
Commission's programs. However, we believe that handling survivor data 
may present some unique challenges. As such, we direct the Bureau to 
work with USAC, in coordination with the Office of Managing Director 
(OMD) (and specifically Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO)) and 
the Commission's Senior Agency Official for Privacy, to consider ways 
in which USAC might further limit access to data tied to survivors. The 
Bureau and USAC should consider, for the USAC-run call center, 
requiring call center supervisor review before the release of any 
survivor personal information from a USAC (or its contractor's) call 
center, developing and delivering specific training on handling 
survivor data for all support center staff, and limiting the type of 
survivor data shared with service providers outside of more routine 
system interactions. With oversight from the Bureau, USAC should 
implement responsive changes that cause minimal burdens on consumers 
and service providers.
    182. 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 to 
protect program integrity. We direct USAC to pay particular attention 
to whether inclusion of survivor enrollments in USAC reports could 
reveal sensitive information about enrollees. For example, if a 
survivor is the only enrollee, or one of a few enrollees, in a 
geographic region for which there is a report, then a savvy analyst, 
perhaps with local knowledge, might be able to deduce the survivor's 
identity. In cases in which inclusion of survivor enrollments could 
reveal sensitive information, USAC should utilize privacy enhancing 
technologies or methodologies (e.g., excluding data, masking data, or 
employing differential privacy) to avoid doing so. We also direct 
service providers to protect the privacy of both the survivor and the 
alleged abuser consistent with the standards we adopt above regarding 
covered provider obligations for handling survivor information.
    183. Program Evaluation. The SCA requires the Commission to 
complete a program evaluation within two years of the Commission 
completing its rulemaking. The evaluation is meant to examine the 
impact and effectiveness of the support offered to survivors suffering 
from financial hardship and to assess the detection and reduction of 
risks to program integrity with respect to the support offered. To this 
end, the Commission directs USAC, under the oversight of the Bureau and 
either directly or with the support of a vendor, to complete an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the support offered to survivors. 
This evaluation should be completed and approved by the Bureau no later 
than two years after this document is published in the Federal 
Register, and the Commission will share the completed evaluation with 
the appropriate congressional committees. To develop this evaluation, 
USAC, operating under the guidance of the Bureau and the Office of 
Economics and Analytics, with coordination from the Senior Agency 
Official for Privacy, should develop surveys that can be sent to 
stakeholder groups that work directly with survivors, inclusive of 
service providers, for program evaluation input. These surveys should 
be ready to be shared with relevant stakeholder groups no later than 
sixteen months after the adoption of this document, a time frame we 
believe will properly accommodate the necessary Paperwork Reduction Act 
and Privacy Act timelines that may accompany such outreach. By working 
with stakeholder groups we avoid going directly to survivors, who may 
have privacy and safety concerns. Information developed through the 
survey process can be supplemented by any data that USAC is able to 
develop through its general maintenance of survivor data in USAC's 
systems. In response to the Safe Connections NPRM, no commenter 
provided significant feedback regarding program evaluations.

II. Procedural Matters

    184. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document may contain 
new or modified information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. All such 
requirements will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on any new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    185. In this document, we adopt rules, pursuant to Congress's 
direction in the SCA, that have an impact on all covered providers, 
including covered providers that are small entities. We impose certain 
obligations regarding communications with consumers and survivors. We 
also establish a compliance date six months after the effective date of 
this document, finding that the countervailing public interest in 
ensuring survivors have access to line separations regardless of their 
provider outweighs an extended compliance deadline for small covered 
providers. Further, staggered compliance deadlines could cause 
confusion for consumers, and we believe that the SCA's operational and 
technical infeasibility provisions we codify in our rules will account 
for differences in the capabilities between large and small covered 
providers regarding information collection requirements. Regarding 
protecting the privacy of calls and texts to hotlines, we require 
covered providers and wireline providers of voice service, within 12 
months, subject to certain conditions that may extend this time, (1) 
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; and (2) maintain internal records of 
calls and text messages excluded from consumer-facing logs of calls and 
text messages. Covered providers and wireline providers of voice 
service that are small service providers are given 18 months, subject 
to certain conditions that may extend this time, to comply with the 
same obligations. We received comments requesting that smaller 
providers be afforded 24 months to comply with such obligations. 
Recognizing that the SCA contains no language regarding specific 
timeframes with respect to this obligation, we found

[[Page 84440]]

that granting smaller providers extra implementation time is 
appropriate, given that they may face more resource challenges than 
larger providers in complying with the new rules. We acknowledged that 
this 18-month period is less than the requested 24-month period, but we 
found that our 18-month compliance deadline for small providers 
properly balances the significance of the risks faced by domestic abuse 
survivors, and the benefits of them being able to call hotlines and 
seek help without fear of the abuser accessing their call records, with 
the implementation challenges faced by smaller providers. Third, 
regarding emergency communications support for survivors, we designate 
the Lifeline program as the program that will support emergency 
communications efforts for survivors with financial hardship. This will 
have an impact on eligible telecommunications carriers designated to 
provide Lifeline support, but we expect any new regulatory impacts to 
be minor and consistent with our existing rules. As the SCA has no 
definition for financial hardship we adopt a definition that is more 
expansive than the current Lifeline eligibility standards, and we adopt 
an approach for documenting that financial hardship that allows for 
self-certification. We also direct USAC to prepare for a program 
evaluation of our efforts to provide emergency communications support 
to survivors. This evaluation will require surveys of relevant 
stakeholder groups that USAC will develop under the oversight of the 
Bureau and the Office of Economics and Analytics.
    186. 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 a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the rule 
and policy changes adopted in the Report and Order on small entities. 
The FRFA is set forth in section III of this document.
    187. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of 
the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    188. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the Safe Connections NPRM, released in February 2023. 
The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the 
Safe Connections NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were 
filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for and Objectives of the Report and Order

    189. Congress enacted the Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe 
Connections Act or SCA) in November of 2022 to ensure survivors of 
domestic violence can separate from abusers without losing independent 
access to their mobile service plan. The SCA 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 days after receiving a request from the survivor. The SCA also 
directs the Commission to issue rules, within 18 months of the 
statute's enactment, implementing the line separation requirement. 
Additionally, the SCA requires the Commission to designate either the 
Lifeline program or 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.
    190. The Report and Order implements the SCA, adopting measures we 
believe will aid survivors who lack meaningful support and 
communications options when establishing independence from an abuser. 
We take action to ensure that survivors of domestic violence are able 
to maintain critical access to reliable, safe, and affordable 
connectivity. Such connectivity permits survivors to contact family and 
friends, and seek help through services such as domestic abuse 
hotlines. Survivors whose devices and associated telephone numbers are 
part of multi-line or shared plans with abusers can face difficulties 
separating lines from such plans and maintaining affordable service. 
Survivors may be reluctant to call support services such as hotlines 
for fear of the call log exposing the call to an abuser. Survivors may 
also experience financial hardship as a result of leaving a 
relationship with an abuser.
    191. Specifically, the Report and Order adopts rules to implement 
the line separation requirement in the Safe Connections Act; adopts the 
Commission's proposal from the Safe Connections NPRM relating to 
protecting the privacy of calls and text messages to domestic abuse 
hotlines to 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; and 
designates the Lifeline program as the vehicle for providing survivors 
suffering financial hardship with emergency communications support for 
up to six months.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    192. There were no comments raised that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA. Nonetheless, we 
considered the potential impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on 
small entities and took steps where appropriate and feasible to reduce 
the compliance burden for small entities in order to reduce the 
economic impact of the rules enacted herein on such entities.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    193. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not 
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    194. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as

[[Page 84441]]

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 
SBA.
    195. 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 33.2 million businesses.
    196. 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.
    197. 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.''
    198. 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.
    199. 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 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
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.
    200. 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 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 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.
    201. 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive 
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,230 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.
    202. 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were

[[Page 84442]]

engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 109 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.
    203. 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 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, 
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 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.
    204. 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 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 87 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.
    205. 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 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
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.
    206. 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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
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.
    207. Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wireless 
ISPs 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.
    208. Additionally, according to Commission data on internet access 
services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 1,237 
fixed wireless and 70 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.
    209. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the

[[Page 84443]]

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 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 207 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 202 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.
    210. 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 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 
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.
    211. 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.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    212. In the Report and Order, the rules we adopt regarding the 
separation of lines from shared mobile service contracts require all 
small and other covered providers to take several actions with regard 
to reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance matters.
    213. Specifically, within two business days of receiving a 
completed line separation request from a survivor, a covered provider 
must separate the line(s) of a survivor (and any line(s) of an 
individual in the care of a survivor) or the line(s) of an abuser from 
a shared mobile service contract under which a survivor and abuser each 
use a line. To facilitate such line separations, a covered provider 
must establish more than one secure remote means through which a 
survivor may submit all information required to effectuate a line 
separation request and such means must be accessible by survivors with 
disabilities. A covered provider must treat any information submitted 
by a survivor in connection with a line separation request as 
confidential, which means the covered provider must securely dispose of 
such information within 90 days, subject to certain exceptions; 
implement policies and procedures governing the treatment and disposal 
of such information; train employees on such procedures; and restrict 
access to databases storing such information. Furthermore, at the time 
a survivor submits a line separation request, a covered provider must 
allow the survivor to indicate service choices, including from among 
any commercially available plans offered by the covered provider. Our 
rules also require that, as part of the line separation request 
mechanism, a covered provider inform a survivor of the availability of 
funding from the Lifeline program, and about the rules pertaining to 
participation in Lifeline.
    214. After receiving a line separation request from a survivor, a 
covered provider must notify the survivor that the covered provider may 
contact the survivor or the survivor's designated representative to 
confirm the line separation or to inform them of the covered provider's 
inability to complete the line separation. When communicating with a 
survivor or a survivor's designated representative, a covered provider 
must allow the survivor or the designated representative to select the 
manner of communication. Furthermore, a covered provider must provide 
documentation confirming receipt of the survivor's legitimate line 
separation request that clearly identifies the survivor by name. A 
covered provider must attempt to authenticate that a survivor 
submitting a line separation request is in fact a user of the specific 
line identified by the survivor. A covered provider must also lock the 
account subject to a line separation to prevent all SIM changes, number 
ports, and line cancellations and effectuate a line separation for the 
completed request, subject to operational or technical infeasibility. 
If a line separation is operationally or technically infeasible, a 
covered provider must inform the survivor of the nature of the 
infeasibility and provide information about alternative options, such 
as establishing a new account for the survivor. A covered provider must 
notify the survivor of the date it will notify the primary account 
holder of the completed line separation if the survivor who submitted a 
complete line separation request is not also the primary account 
holder. In the event a survivor elects to separate an abuser's line, a 
covered provider must also

[[Page 84444]]

provide notice to the survivor of when it will notify the abuser of the 
separation. Additionally, if the covered provider rejects a line 
separation request for any reason other than operational or technical 
infeasibility, the covered provider must notify the survivor within two 
business days through the manner of communication selected by the 
survivor of the rejection. This notification must also explain the 
basis for rejection, describe how the survivor can correct any issues 
with the existing request or submit a new one, and, if applicable, 
provide the survivor with information about alternative options, 
including starting a new account.
    215. The new rules also require a covered provider to effectuate a 
line separation request regardless of whether an account lock is 
activated on the account. To balance the need to protect survivors with 
the need to protect against fraud, our rules also require that covered 
providers make a record of any customer other than the survivor who 
requests that the covered provider stop or reverse a line separation 
because of fraud.
    216. In addition to the procedural requirements mentioned above, we 
require that covered providers train employees who will interact with 
survivors on the sensitivities surrounding such interactions. We also 
require that covered providers notify consumers of the availability of 
line separations from shared mobile service contracts on its website, 
in physical stores, and in other forms of public-facing consumer 
communication. Our rules detail the specific information that must be 
included by covered providers and we require that this notice be in any 
language in which the covered provider currently advertises.
    217. Our rules also implement the SCA's statutory requirements that 
covered providers take certain actions with regard to financial 
responsibilities and account billing following completed line 
separations. Specifically, unless otherwise ordered by a court, when 
survivors separate their lines and the lines of individuals in their 
care from a shared mobile service contract, a covered provider must 
ensure that the financial responsibilities, including monthly service 
costs, for the transferred numbers are assumed by the survivor 
beginning on the date on which the covered provider transfers the 
billing responsibilities for and use of the transferred numbers to 
those survivors. We also require covered providers to ensure that any 
previously accrued arrears on an account following a line separation 
stay with the person who was the primary account holder prior to the 
line separation.
    218. The rules we adopt relating to protecting the privacy of calls 
and text messages to domestic abuse hotlines require all covered 
providers, wireline providers of voice service, fixed wireless 
providers of voice service, and fixed satellite providers of voice 
service to omit from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages 
any records of calls or text messages to covered hotlines in the 
central database that we establish. These service providers must 
maintain internal records of these omitted calls and text messages. In 
addition, these providers are responsible for downloading the initial 
database file and subsequent updates to the database file from the 
central database that we establish. Updates must be downloaded and 
implemented by covered providers, wireline providers of voice service, 
fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed satellite 
providers of voice service no later than 15 days after such updates are 
made available for download. In the Report and Order, we exempt from 
its rules pertaining to protecting the privacy of calls and text 
messages to domestic abuse hotlines service providers that do not 
create their own call logs but, instead, rely on their underlying 
facilities-based provider to create such call logs and clarifying that 
wholesale service providers incur such an obligation.
    219. We delegate many of the details regarding establishing the 
central database of hotlines to the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(Bureau), but direct the Bureau not to fund creation and maintenance of 
the database through an assessment on service providers. The rules 
adopted in the Report and Order service providers serving the vast 
majority of Americans to comply with the rules 12 months after 
publication of the Report and Order in the Federal Register. Small 
service providers, defined as covered providers, wireline providers of 
voice service, fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed 
satellite providers of voice service that have 100,000 or fewer voice 
service subscriber lines (counting the total of all business and 
residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones and aggregated 
over all of the provider's affiliates), are provided additional time an 
additional six months to comply (18 months). We provide two important 
caveats to aid the ability of service providers to comply with these 
deadlines. First, the deadline for compliance will be no earlier than 
eight months after the Bureau has published the database download file 
specification (14 months for small service providers), which should be 
the final detail necessary for service providers to complete design of 
their systems. Second, the deadline will be no earlier than two months 
after the Bureau announces that the database administrator has made the 
initial database download file available for testing (eight months for 
small service providers). To the extent that the date of either 
announcement causes the deadline to be later than 12 months after 
Federal Register publication (18 months for small service providers), 
the Bureau should announce the new deadline for implementation based on 
the date of the announcement.
    220. The Report and Order directs the Universal Service 
Administrative Company (USAC) to ensure that survivors experiencing 
financial hardship will be able to apply for and enroll in the Lifeline 
program. The Report and Order also directs USAC to implement processes 
to transition survivors from emergency communications support at the 
end of the six-month emergency support period mandated by the SCA. The 
actions taken in the Report and Order do not place any significant new 
requirements on service providers that are also eligible 
telecommunications carriers (ETC) participating in the Lifeline 
program, regardless of whether ETCs are large or small businesses. The 
Lifeline rules already applicable to ETCs remain largely the same. We 
therefore expect the actions we have taken in the Report and Order 
achieve the goals of the SCA without placing additional costs and 
burdens on covered providers; however, there is not sufficient 
information on the record to quantify the cost of compliance for small 
entities, or to determine whether it will be necessary for small 
entities to hire professionals to comply with the adopted requirements.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    221. The RFA requires an agency to provide, ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact 
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, 
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule 
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was 
rejected.''
    222. With regard to line separations, the Safe Connections Act 
directs the

[[Page 84445]]

Commission to consider implementation timelines for small covered 
providers, and after examining the record, we declined to adopt a 
different implementation timeframe for small providers. First, while 
the record indicated that small covered providers may need additional 
time to comply with the Safe Connections Act and our rules as a whole, 
commenters failed to provide sufficient justification for why small 
covered providers would require additional time to implement the line 
separation provisions specifically. Second, given the critical and 
potentially lifesaving importance of independent communications for 
survivors escaping abusive circumstances, we think it self-evident that 
survivors who receive service from small covered providers are no less 
entitled to the protections made available by the Safe Connections Act 
than survivors who receive service from other covered providers. Third, 
we found that adopting inconsistent timelines for small and large 
providers may make it difficult for stakeholders to carry out effective 
messaging campaigns touting the availability of line separations. This 
inconsistency may confuse survivors and ultimately dissuade them from 
further pursuing a line separation if they are told that their current 
carrier does not offer the ability despite having been informed of the 
Safe Connections Act's features by a stakeholder messaging campaign. 
Fourth, we believe that Congress included the technical and operational 
infeasibility provisions to account for differences in the capabilities 
of providers (among other reasons), particularly between large and 
small providers, and to incentivize and protect providers while they 
work to update or develop systems and processes capable of fully 
effectuating the SCA's requirements and our rules within the statutory 
timeframe. For these reasons, we declined to extend the implementation 
timeline for small entities.
    223. With regard to our rules pertaining to protecting the privacy 
of calls and texts to hotlines, we received comments noting that 
smaller service providers work with limited staff and other resources, 
requiring it taking longer to implement changes in their systems, 
specifically requesting 24 months to comply with any obligations that 
the Commission might establish. As part of the directive under the Safe 
Connections Act to consider factors reflecting implementation of such 
requirements on smaller providers, we adopted a deadline of 18 months 
from the date of publication of the Report and Order in the Federal 
Register to comply with our new rules. We found that granting smaller 
providers extra implementation time is appropriate, given that they may 
face more resource challenges than larger providers (which are given 12 
months) in complying with the new rules. We found that our 18-month 
compliance deadline for small providers properly balances the 
significance of the risks faced by domestic abuse survivors, and the 
benefits of them being able to call hotlines and seek help without fear 
of the abuser accessing their call records, with the implementation 
challenges faced by smaller providers. We also adjusted the guaranteed 
periods between the two important database creation milestones and the 
compliance deadline for smaller service providers to compensate for the 
additional six months that such providers are granted to comply. Our 
decision to exempt from the requirements service providers that do not 
create their own call logs but, instead, rely on their underlying 
facilities-based provider to create such call logs should be of 
significant benefit to smaller service providers that rely on resale 
rather than constructing capital-intensive networks to provide service.
    224. We delegated many of the details regarding establishing the 
central database of hotlines to the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(Bureau), but direct the Bureau not to fund the creation and 
maintenance of the database through an assessment on service providers. 
In designating the Lifeline program to provide emergency communications 
support to survivors experiencing financial hardship, the Report and 
Order largely places requirements on USAC, as the Lifeline program 
administrator, to implement the mandated requirements. Service 
providers that are also ETCs are still required to ensure their 
compliance with all Lifeline rules, but this is not a new requirement. 
There are limited new requirements for ETCs, large and small, but these 
requirements align with existing requirements for participation in the 
Lifeline program and merely clarify that such requirements will also 
apply to survivors that might enter the Lifeline program. This approach 
allowed the Commission to minimize any significant impact on all 
participating entities.

G. Report to Congress

    225. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including the FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    226. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority 
contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 251, 254, 301, 303, 316, 332, 
345, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 154(i), 154(j), 201, 251, 254, 301, 303, 316, 332, 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, the Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 22-
238, 11-42, and 21-450 is adopted and that parts 54 and 64 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR parts 54, 64, are amended as set forth in 
the amendments at the end of this document.
    227. It is further ordered that the Report and Order shall be 
effective January 14, 2024. Compliance with the rule changes adopted in 
the Report and Order, except for Sec.  64.6408, shall not be required 
until the later of: (i) six months after the effective date of the 
Report and Order; or (ii) after the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) completes review of any information collection requirements 
associated with the Report and Order that the Wireline Competition 
Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce the 
compliance date for these rule changes by subsequent Public Notice and 
to cause part 54, Sec. Sec.  54.403, 54.405, 54.409, 54.410, 54.424, 
and 54.1800, and part 64, Sec.  64.2010 and subpart II, to be revised 
accordingly. Compliance with Sec.  64.6408 shall be required as 
described in paragraphs 138-145 of the Report and Order. The Wireline 
Competition Bureau is delegated authority to extend the dates upon 
which compliance with the provisions of Sec.  64.6408 shall be 
required, consistent with paragraphs 138-145 of the Report and Order, 
and to revise Sec.  64.6408 accordingly.
    228. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

[[Page 84446]]

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    229. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing 
Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a 
copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 54 and 64

    Communications, Communications common carriers, Privacy, 
Telecommunications, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 54 and 64 as follows:

PART 54--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

0
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues 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.


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'' has the meaning given such term at 47 
CFR 64.6400(m).
    (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. A survivor is suffering from ``financial 
hardship'' when the survivor's household satisfies the requirements 
detailed at Sec.  54.409(a)(1) or (2) or is a household in which--
    (1) The household's income as defined in paragraph (f) of this 
section is at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a 
household of that size;
    (2) At least one member of the household has applied for and been 
approved to receive benefits under the free and reduced price lunch 
program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) or the school breakfast program under section 4 of 
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), or at least one 
member of the household is enrolled in a school or school district that 
participates in the Community Eligibility Provision (42 U.S.C. 1759a);
    (3) At least one member of the household has received a Federal 
Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1070a) in the current award year, if such award is verifiable 
through the National Verifier or National Lifeline Accountability 
Database or the participating provider verifies eligibility under Sec.  
54.1806(a)(2); and
    (4) At least one member of the household receives assistance 
through the special supplemental nutritional program for women, infants 
and children established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 
1996 (42 U.S.C. 1786).

0
3. Amend Sec.  54.403 by adding paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.403  Lifeline support amount.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Emergency communications support amount. Emergency 
communications support in the amount of up to $9.25 per month will be 
made available 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.
    (i) The base reimbursement in this paragraph (a)(4) 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.
    (ii) 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.
    (5) Compliance date. Compliance with paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section will not be required until this paragraph (a)(5) is removed or 
contains a compliance date, which will not occur until the later of 
July 15, 2024; or after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
completes review of any information collection requirements in 
paragraph (a)(4) that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is 
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act or the Wireline Competition 
Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission 
directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date 
for paragraph (a)(4) by subsequent Public Notice and notification in 
the Federal Register and to cause this section to be revised 
accordingly.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  54.405 by adding paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) 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 qualified to participate in the Lifeline program as defined by 
Sec.  54.409, the Administrator must de-enroll the subscriber from 
participation in the 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.
    (7) Compliance date. Compliance with paragraph (e)(6) of this 
section will not be required until this paragraph (e)(7) is removed or 
contains a compliance date, which will not occur until the later of 
July 15, 2024; or after OMB completes review of any information 
collection requirements in this subpart, Sec. Sec.  54.403(a)(4), 
54.410(d)(2)(ii), 54.410(i), and 54.424, that the Wireline Competition 
Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act or the 
Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not 
required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to 
announce a compliance date for the requirements of paragraph (e)(6) by 
subsequent Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and

[[Page 84447]]

to cause this section to be revised accordingly.

0
5. Amend Sec.  54.409 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  54.409  Consumer qualification for Lifeline.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Consumers that are survivors can qualify to receive emergency 
communications support from the Lifeline program without regard to 
whether the survivor meets the otherwise applicable eligibility 
requirements of the Lifeline program in this part, if:
    (i) The survivor suffers from financial hardship as defined by 
Sec.  54.400(s); and
    (ii) The survivor requested a line separation as required under 47 
U.S.C. 345(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934.
    (4) Compliance with paragraph (a)(3) of this section will not be 
required until this paragraph (a)(4) is removed or contains a 
compliance date, which will not occur until the later of July 15, 2024; 
or after OMB completes review of any information collection 
requirements in this subpart, Sec. Sec.  54.403(a)(4), 
54.410(d)(2)(ii), 54.410(i), and 54.424, that the Wireline Competition 
Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act or the 
Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not 
required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to 
announce a compliance date for the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) by 
subsequent Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and 
to cause this section to be revised accordingly.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  54.410 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and adding 
paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  54.410  Subscriber eligibility determination and certification.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The subscriber's full residential address, or, for a 
subscriber seeking to receive emergency communications support from the 
Lifeline program, a prior billing or residential address from within 
the past six months;
* * * * *
    (i) Survivors of domestic violence. All survivors seeking to 
receive emergency communications support from the Lifeline program must 
have their eligibility to participate in the program confirmed through 
the National Verifier. The National Verifier will also transition 
survivors approaching the end of their six-month emergency support 
period in a manner consistent with the requirements applied to eligible 
telecommunications carriers at paragraph (f) of this section, and the 
National Verifier will de-enroll survivors whose continued eligibility 
to participate in the Lifeline program cannot be confirmed, consistent 
with Sec.  54.405(e)(6).
    (j) Compliance date. Compliance with paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and 
paragraph (i) will not be required until this paragraph (j) is removed 
or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until the later of 
July 15, 2024; or after OMB completes review of any information 
collection requirements in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and paragraph (i) that 
the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act or the Wireline Competition Bureau determines 
that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraph 
(d)(2)(ii) and paragraph (i) by subsequent Public Notice and 
notification in the Federal Register and to cause this section to be 
revised accordingly.

0
7. Add Sec.  54.424 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 meets the eligibility 
criteria set forth in Sec.  54.409(a)(3).
    (2) A copy of the subscriber's certification that complies with the 
requirements set forth in Sec.  54.410(d).
    (3) An eligible telecommunications carrier must securely retain all 
information and documentation provided by the National Verifier or 
received from the survivor to document their line separation request as 
required by Sec.  54.417.
    (b) Emergency communications support duration. Qualified survivors 
shall be eligible to receive emergency communications support for a 
total of no more than six months. The Administrator will inform 
eligible telecommunications carriers when participating survivors have 
reached their limit of allowable emergency communications support. A 
survivor may seek and receive further emergency communications support 
if that request is related to a new line separation request and a 
showing of financial hardship completed by the survivor and confirmed 
by the National Verifier.
    (c) Compliance date. Compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section will not be required until this paragraph (c) is removed or 
contains a compliance date, which will not occur until the later of 
July 15, 2024; or after OMB completes review of any information 
collection requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) that the Wireline 
Competition Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act or the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is 
not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to 
announce a compliance date for paragraphs (a) and (b) by subsequent 
Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and to cause 
this section to be revised accordingly.

0
8. Amend Sec.  54.1800 by revising paragraph (j)(1) and adding 
paragraph (j)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  54.1800  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) At least one member of the household meets the qualifications 
in Sec.  54.409(a)(2) or (3) or (b);
* * * * *
    (7) Compliance with paragraph (j)(1) of this section will not be 
required until this paragraph (j)(7) is removed or contains a 
compliance date, which will not occur until the later of July 15, 2024; 
or after OMB completes review of any information collection 
requirements in subpart E of this part, Sec. Sec.  54.403(a)(4), 
54.410(d)(2)(ii), 54.410(i), and 54.424, that the Wireline Competition 
Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act or the 
Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not 
required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to 
announce a compliance date for the requirements of paragraph (j)(1) by 
subsequent Public Notice and notification in the Federal Register and 
to cause this section to be revised accordingly.
* * * * *

[[Page 84448]]

PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS

0
9. 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, 301, 303, 316, 345, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-
1473, unless otherwise noted; Div. P, sec. 503, Pub. L. 115-141, 132 
Stat. 348, 1091; sec. 5, Pub. L. 117-223, 136 Stat 2280, 2285-88 (47 
U.S.C. 345 note).


0
10. Amend Sec.  64.2010 by revising paragraph (f) and adding paragraph 
(h) to read as follows:


Sec.  64.2010  Safeguards on the disclosure of customer proprietary 
network information.

* * * * *
    (f) Notification of account changes. (1) Telecommunications 
carriers must notify customers immediately whenever a password, 
customer response to a back-up means of authentication for lost or 
forgotten password, online account, or address of record is created or 
changed. This notification is not required when the customer initiates 
service, including the selection of a password at service initiation. 
This notification may be through a carrier-originated voicemail or text 
message to the telephone number of record, or by mail to the address of 
record, and must not reveal the changed information or be sent to the 
new account information.
    (2) Paragraph (f)(1) of this section does not apply to a change 
made in connection with a line separation request under 47 U.S.C. 345 
and subpart II of this part.
* * * * *
    (h) Compliance date. Compliance with the provision in paragraph (f) 
of this section applicable to line separation requests under 47 U.S.C. 
345 and subpart II of this part will not be required until this 
paragraph (h) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not 
occur until the later of July 15, 2024; or after OMB completes review 
of any information collection requirements in subpart II of this part 
that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act or the Wireline Competition Bureau determines 
that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline 
Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for the requirements 
of paragraph (f) by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the 
Federal Register and to cause this section to be revised accordingly.

0
11. Add subpart II, consisting of Sec. Sec.  64.6400 through 64.6409, 
to read as follows:

Subpart II--Communications Service Protections for Victims of 
Domestic Violence, Human Trafficking, and Related Crimes

Sec.
64.6400 Definitions.
64.6401 Line separation request submission requirements.
64.6402 Processing of separation of lines from a shared mobile 
service contract.
64.6403 Establishment of mechanisms for submission of line 
separation requests.
64.6404 Prohibitions and limitations for line separation requests.
64.6405 Financial responsibility following line separations.
64.6406 Notice of line separation availability to consumers.
64.6407 Employee training.
64.6408 Protection of the privacy of calls and text messages to 
covered hotlines.
64.6409 Compliance date.


Sec.  64.6400  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart:
    (a) Abuser. Abuser means an individual who has committed or 
allegedly committed a covered act, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 345 and this 
subpart, against:
    (1) An individual who seeks relief under 47 U.S.C. 345 and this 
subpart; or
    (2) An individual in the care of an individual who seeks relief 
under 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart.
    (b) Business day. Business day means the traditional work week of 
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding the covered 
provider's company-defined holidays.
    (c) Call. Call means a voice service transmission, regardless of 
whether such transmission is completed.
    (d) Consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages. Consumer-
facing logs of calls and text messages means any means by which a 
covered provider, wireline provider of voice service, fixed wireless 
provider of voice service, or fixed satellite provider of voice service 
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 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 providers, wireline provider of voice service, fixed wireless 
provider of voice service, and fixed satellite provider wireline 
providers of voice service of individual call and text message records.
    (e) 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, 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 paragraph 
(e)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (4) A criminal conviction or any other determination of a court 
shall not be required for conduct described in this paragraph (e) to 
constitute a covered act.
    (f) Covered hotline. 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.
    (g) 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).
    (h) Fixed wireless provider of voice service. Fixed wireless 
provider of voice service means a provider of voice service to 
customers at fixed locations that connects such customers to its 
network primarily by terrestrial wireless transmission.
    (i) Fixed satellite provider of voice service. Fixed satellite 
provider of voice service means a provider of voice service to 
customers at fixed locations that connects such customers to its 
network primarily by satellite transmission.
    (j) Primary account holder. Primary account holder means an 
individual who is a party to a mobile service contract with a covered 
provider.
    (k) 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. For purposes of this subpart, a ``line 
of service'' shall mean one that is associated with a telephone number, 
and includes all of the services

[[Page 84449]]

associated with that line under the shared mobile service contract, 
regardless of classification, including voice, text, and data services.
    (l) Small service provider. Small service provider means a covered 
provider, wireline provider of voice service, fixed wireless provider 
of voice service, or fixed satellite provider of voice service that has 
100,000 or fewer voice service subscriber lines (counting the total of 
all business and residential fixed subscriber lines and mobile phones 
and aggregated over all of the provider's affiliates).
    (m) 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). For 
purposes of this subpart, an individual who ``cares for'' another 
individual, or individual ``in the care of'' another individual, shall 
encompass:
    (i) Any individuals who are part of the same household, as defined 
in Sec.  54.400 of this chapter;
    (ii) Parents, guardians, and minor children even if the parents and 
children live at different addresses;
    (iii) Those who care for, or are in the care of, another individual 
by valid court order or power of attorney; and
    (iv) An individual who is the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a 
person over the age of 18 upon whom an individual is financially or 
physically dependent (and those persons financially or physically 
dependent on the parent, guardian or caretaker).
    (n) Text message. 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)).
    (o) Voice service. 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)).
    (p) Wireline provider of voice service. Wireline provider of voice 
service means a provider of voice service that connects customers to 
its network primarily by wire.


Sec.  64.6401  Line separation request submission requirements.

    (a) A survivor seeking to separate a line from a shared mobile 
service contract pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart, or a 
designated representative of such survivor, shall submit to the covered 
provider a line separation request that:
    (1) Requests relief under 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart;
    (2) Identifies each line that should be separated, using the phone 
number associated with the line;
    (3) Identifies which line(s) belong to the survivor and states that 
the survivor is the user of those lines;
    (4) In the case of a survivor seeking separation of the line(s) of 
any individual in the care of a survivor, includes a signed and dated 
affidavit that states that the individual is in the care of the 
survivor and is the user of the specific line(s) to be separated;
    (5) In the case of a survivor seeking separation of the abuser's 
line(s), states that the abuser is the user of that specific line;
    (6) Includes the name of the survivor and the name of the abuser 
that is known to the survivor;
    (7) Provides survivor's preferred contact information for 
communications regarding the line separation request;
    (8) In the case of a designated representative assisting with or 
submitting the line separation request on behalf of a survivor, 
provides the name of that designated representative and the designated 
representative's relationship to the survivor, and states that the 
designated representative assisted the survivor;
    (9) Includes evidence that verifies that an individual who uses a 
line under the shared mobile contract has committed or allegedly 
committed a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the 
survivor's care. Such evidence shall be either:
    (i) 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
    (ii) A copy of a police report, statements provided by police, 
including military or Tribal police, to magistrates or judges, charging 
documents, protective or restraining orders, military protective 
orders, or any other official record that documents the covered act.
    (b) A covered provider may attempt to assess the authenticity of 
the evidence of survivor status submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(9) 
of this section, and may deny a line separation request if the covered 
provider forms a reasonable belief of fraud from such an assessment, 
but in any case shall not directly contact entities that created any 
such evidence to confirm its authenticity.
    (c) A covered provider shall not assess the veracity of the 
evidence of survivor status submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(9) of 
this section.
    (d) Notwithstanding 47 U.S.C. 222(c)(2), and except as provided in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, 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 the fact of the line separation 
request and any information or documents a survivor submits under this 
subpart, including any customer proprietary network information, as 
confidential and securely dispose of the information not later than 90 
days after receiving the information, except as provided in paragraphs 
(d)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (1) A covered provider may only disclose or permit access to 
information a survivor submits under this subpart pursuant to a valid 
court order; to the individual survivor submitting the line separation 
request; to anyone that the survivor specifically designates; to those 
third parties necessary to effectuate the request (i.e., vendors, 
contractors, and agents); or, to the extent necessary, to the 
Commission or the Universal Service Administrative Company for 
processing of emergency communications support through the Lifeline 
program for qualifying survivors, as provided in Sec.  54.424 of this 
chapter.
    (2) A covered provider may retain any confidential record related 
to the line separation request for longer than 90 days upon receipt of 
a legitimate law enforcement request.
    (3) A covered provider may maintain 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 as 
long as the covered provider also treats such records as confidential 
and securely disposes of them. This record shall not contain the 
documentation of survivor status described in paragraph (a)(9) of this 
section or other original records a survivor submits with a request 
under this subpart.
    (4) A covered provider shall implement data security measures 
commensurate with the sensitivity of the information submitted with 
line separation requests, including policies and procedures governing 
confidential treatment and secure disposal of the

[[Page 84450]]

information a survivor submits under this subpart, train employees on 
those policies and procedures, and restrict access to databases storing 
such information to only those employees who need access to that 
information.
    (5) A covered provider shall not use, process, or disclose the fact 
of a line separation request or any information or documentation 
provided with such a request to market any products or services.
    (e) 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  Processing of separation of lines from a shared mobile 
service contract.

    (a) Subject to the requirements of this section, as soon as 
feasible, but not later than close of business two businesses days 
after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor 
submitted pursuant to Sec.  64.6401, a covered provider shall, 
consistent with the survivor's request:
    (1) Separate the line(s) of the survivor, and the line(s) of any 
individual in the care of the survivor, from the shared mobile service 
contract; or
    (2) Separate the line(s) of the abuser from the shared mobile 
service contract.
    (b) A covered provider shall attempt to authenticate, using 
multiple authentication methods if necessary, that a survivor 
requesting a line separation is a user of the specific line(s).
    (1) If the survivor is the primary account holder or a user 
designated to have account authority by the primary account holder, a 
covered provider shall attempt to authenticate the identity of the 
survivor in accordance with the covered provider's authentication 
measures for primary account holders or designated users.
    (2) If the survivor is not the primary account holder or a 
designated user, the covered provider shall attempt to authenticate the 
identity of the survivor using methods that are reasonably designed to 
confirm the survivor is actually a user of the specified line(s) on the 
account.
    (c) At the time a survivor submits a line separation request, a 
covered provider shall:
    (1) Inform the survivor, through remote means established in Sec.  
64.6403, 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;
    (2) Inform the survivor of the existence of the Lifeline program as 
a source of support for emergency communications for qualifying 
survivors, as provided in Sec.  54.424 of this chapter, including a 
description of who might qualify for the Lifeline program, how to 
participate, and information about the Affordable Connectivity Program, 
or other successor program, for which the survivor may be eligible due 
to their survivor status;
    (3) If the line separation request was submitted through remote 
means, allow the survivor to elect the manner in which the covered 
provider may contact the survivor (or designated representative of the 
survivor) in response to the request, if necessary, which must include 
at least one means of communications that does not require a survivor 
to interact in person with an employee of the covered provider at a 
physical location;
    (4) If the line separation request was submitted through remote 
means, allow a survivor to select a preferred language for future 
communications from among those in which the covered provider 
advertises, and deliver any such future communications in the language 
selected by the survivor; and
    (5) Allow a survivor submitting a line separation request to 
indicate the service plan the survivor chooses from among all 
commercially available plans the covered provider offers for which the 
survivor may be eligible, including any prepaid plans; whether the 
survivor intends to retain possession of any device associated with a 
separated line; and whether the survivor intends to apply for emergency 
communications support through the Lifeline program, as provided in 
Sec.  54.424 of this chapter, if available through the covered 
provider.
    (d) If a covered provider cannot operationally or technically 
effectuate a line separation request after taking reasonable steps to 
do so, the covered provider shall, at the time of the request (or for a 
request made using remote means, not later than two business days after 
receiving the request) notify the survivor (or designated 
representative of the survivor) of that infeasibility. The covered 
provider shall explain the nature of the operational or technical 
limitations that prevent the provider from completing the line 
separation as requested and provide the survivor with information about 
available alternative options to obtain a line separation and 
alternatives to submitting a line separation request, including 
starting a new account for the survivor. The covered provider shall 
deliver any such notification through the manner of communication and 
in the language selected by the survivor at the time of the request.
    (e) If a covered provider rejects a line separation request for any 
reason other than operational or technical infeasibility, the covered 
provider shall, not later than two business days after receiving the 
request, notify the survivor (or designated representative of the 
survivor), through the manner of communication and the language 
selected by the survivor at the time of the request, of the rejection. 
The covered provider shall explain the basis for the rejection, 
describe how the survivor can either correct any issues with the 
existing line separation request or submit a new line separation 
request, and, if applicable, provide the survivor with information 
about available alternative options to obtain a line separation and 
alternatives to submitting a line separation request, including 
starting a new account for the survivor.
    (f) A covered provider shall treat any correction, resubmission, or 
alternatives selected by a survivor following a denial as a new 
request.
    (g) As soon as feasible after receiving a legitimate line 
separation request, a covered provider shall notify a survivor of the 
date on which the covered provider intends to give any formal 
notification of a line separation, cancellation, or suspension of 
service:
    (1) To the primary account holder, if the survivor is not the 
primary account holder; and
    (2) To the abuser, if the line separation involves the abuser's 
line.
    (h) A covered provider shall not notify an abuser who is not the 
primary account holder when the covered provider separates the line(s) 
of a survivor or an individual in the care of a survivor from a shared 
mobile service contract.
    (i) A covered provider shall not notify a primary account holder of 
a request by a survivor to port-out a number that is the subject of a 
line separation request. A covered provider shall not notify a primary 
account holder of a survivor's request for a Subscriber Identity Module 
(SIM) change when made in connection with a line separation request 
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart.
    (j) A covered provider shall only communicate with a survivor as 
required by this subpart or as necessary to effectuate a line 
separation. A covered provider shall not engage in marketing and 
advertising communications that are not related to assisting the 
survivor with

[[Page 84451]]

understanding and selecting service options.
    (k) As soon as feasible after receiving a legitimate line 
separation request from a survivor, a covered provider shall lock the 
account affected by the line separation request to prevent all SIM 
changes, number ports, and line cancellations other than those 
requested as part of the line separation request pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 
345 and this subpart until the request is processed or denied.
    (l) A covered provider shall effectuate a legitimate line 
separation request submitted pursuant to this subpart, and any 
associated number port and SIM change requests, regardless of whether 
an account lock is activated on the account.
    (m) A covered provider receiving a request from any customer other 
than the survivor requesting that the covered provider stop or reverse 
a line separation on the basis that the line separation request was 
fraudulent shall make a record of the request in the customer's 
existing account and, if applicable, the customer's new account, in the 
event further evidence shows that the line separation request was in 
fact fraudulent.
    (n)(1) A covered provider shall provide a survivor with 
documentation that clearly identifies the survivor and shows that the 
survivor has submitted a legitimate line separation request under 47 
U.S.C. 345(c)(1) and this subpart upon completion of the provider's 
line separation request review process. The documentation shall 
include:
    (i) The survivor's full name;
    (ii) Confirmation that the covered provider authenticated the 
survivor as a user of the line(s) subject to the line separation 
request; and
    (ii) A statement that the survivor has submitted a legitimate line 
separation request under 47 U.S.C. 345(c)(1).
    (2) The covered provider shall provide the documentation in 
paragraph (n)(1) to survivors in a written format that can be easily 
saved and shared by a survivor.


Sec.  64.6403  Establishment of mechanisms for submission of line 
separation requests.

    (a) 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. A covered provider shall offer more than one 
remote means of submitting a line separation request and shall offer 
alternative means to accommodate individuals with different 
disabilities. A covered provider may offer means of submitting a line 
separation request that are not remote if the provider does not require 
a survivor to use such non-remote means or make it more difficult for 
survivors to access remote means than to access non-remote means. For 
purposes of this subpart, remote means are those that do not require a 
survivor to interact in person with an employee of the covered provider 
at a physical location.
    (b) The means a covered provider offers pursuant to this section 
must allow survivors to submit any information and documentation 
required by 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart. A covered provider may 
offer means that allow or require survivors to initiate a request using 
one method and submit documentation using another method. A covered 
provider shall permit a survivor to submit any documentation required 
by 47 U.S.C. 345 and this subpart in any common format.
    (c) Any means that a covered provider offers pursuant to this 
section shall:
    (1) Use wording that is simple, clear, and concise;
    (2) Present the information requests in a format that is easy to 
comprehend and use;
    (3) Generally use the same wording and format on all platforms 
available for submitting a request;
    (4) Clearly identify the information and documentation that a 
survivor must include with a line separation request and allow 
survivors to provide that information and documentation easily;
    (5) Be available in all the languages in which the covered provider 
advertises its services; and
    (6) Be accessible by individuals with disabilities, including being 
available in all formats (e.g., large print, braille) in which the 
covered provider makes its service information available to individuals 
with disabilities.


Sec.  64.6404  Prohibitions and limitations for line separation 
requests.

    (a) A covered provider may not make separation of a line from a 
shared mobile service contract under this subpart contingent on any 
limitation or requirement other than those described in Sec.  64.6405, 
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;
    (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;
    (8) The results of a credit check or other proof of a party's 
ability to pay; or
    (9) Any other requirement or limitation not specifically permitted 
by the Safe Connections Act of 2022, Public Law 117-223, 47 U.S.C. 345.
    (b) Nothing in paragraph (a) 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 or to 
prohibit a covered provider from requiring a survivor requesting a line 
separation to comply with the general terms and conditions associated 
with using the covered provider's services, as long as those terms and 
conditions do not contain the enumerated prohibitions in 47 U.S.C. 
345(b)(2) and this section, and do not otherwise hinder a survivor from 
obtaining a line separation.


Sec.  64.6405  Financial responsibility following line separations.

    (a) Beginning on the date on which a covered provider transfers 
billing responsibilities for and use of telephone number(s) to a 
survivor following a line separation under Sec.  64.6402(a), the 
survivor shall assume financial responsibility, including for monthly 
service costs, for the transferred telephone number(s), unless ordered 
otherwise by a court. Upon the transfer of the telephone number(s) 
under Sec.  64.6402(a) to separate the line(s) of the abuser from a 
shared mobile service contract, the survivor shall have no further 
financial responsibilities to the transferring covered provider for the 
services provided by the transferring covered provider for the 
telephone number(s) or for any mobile device associated with the 
abuser's telephone number(s).
    (b) Beginning on the date on which a covered provider transfers 
billing responsibilities for and rights to telephone number(s) to a 
survivor following a line separation under Sec.  64.6402(a), the 
survivor shall not assume financial responsibility for any mobile 
device(s) associated with the separated line(s), unless the survivor 
purchased the mobile device(s), or

[[Page 84452]]

affirmatively elects to maintain possession of the mobile device(s), 
unless otherwise ordered by a court.
    (c) Following a line separation under Sec.  64.6402(a), a covered 
provider shall maintain any arrears previously accrued on the account 
with the subscriber who was the primary account holder prior to the 
line separation.


Sec.  64.6406  Notice of line separation availability to consumers.

    (a) A covered provider shall make information about the line 
separation options and processes described in this subpart readily 
available to consumers:
    (1) On a support-related page of the website and mobile application 
of the provider in all languages in which the provider advertises on 
the website;
    (2) On physical stores via flyers, signage, or other handouts that 
are clearly visible and accessible to consumers, in all languages in 
which the provider advertises in that particular store and on its 
website;
    (3) In a manner that is accessible to individuals with 
disabilities, including all formats (e.g., large print, braille) in 
which a covered provider makes its service information available to 
individuals with disabilities; and
    (4) In other forms of public-facing consumer communication.
    (b) In providing the information in paragraph (a) of this section 
to consumers, a covered provider shall include, at a minimum, an 
overview of the line separation process; a description of survivors' 
service options that may be available to them; a statement 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; basic information concerning the 
availability of the Lifeline support for qualifying survivors; and a 
description of which types of line separations the provider cannot 
perform in all instances due to operational or technical limitations, 
if any.


Sec.  64.6407  Employee training.

    A covered provider must train its employees who may interact with 
survivors regarding a line separation request on how to assist them or 
on how to direct them to other employees who have received such 
training.


Sec.  64.6408  Protection of the privacy of calls and text messages to 
covered hotlines.

    (a) All covered providers, wireline providers of voice service, 
fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed satellite 
providers of voice service shall:
    (1) 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.
    (2) Maintain internal records of calls and text messages omitted 
from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages pursuant to 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (3) Be responsible for downloading the initial database file and 
subsequent updates to the database file from the central database 
established by the Commission. Updates must be downloaded and 
implemented by covered providers, wireline providers of voice service, 
fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed satellite 
providers of voice service no later than 15 days after such updates are 
made available for download.
    (b) With respect to covered providers, wireline providers of voice 
service, fixed wireless providers of voice service, and fixed satellite 
providers of voice service that are not small service providers, 
compliance with paragraph (a) of this section shall be required 
December 5, 2024. In the event the Wireline Competition Bureau has not 
released the database download file specification by April 5, 2024, or 
in the event the Wireline Competition Bureau has not announced that the 
database administrator has made the initial database download file 
available for testing by October 7, 2024, the compliance deadline set 
forth in this paragraph (b) shall be extended consistent with the 
delay, and the Wireline Competition Bureau is delegated authority to 
revise this section accordingly.
    (c) With respect to small service providers that are covered 
providers or wireline providers of voice service, compliance with 
paragraph (a) of this section shall be required June 5, 2025. In the 
event the Wireline Competition Bureau has not released the database 
download file specification by October 7, 2024, or in the event the 
Wireline Competition Bureau has not announced that the database 
administrator has made the initial database download file available for 
testing by April 7, 2025, the compliance deadline set forth in this 
paragraph (c) shall be extended consistent with the delay, and the 
Wireline Competition Bureau is delegated authority to revise this 
section accordingly.


Sec.  64.6409  Compliance date.

    Compliance with Sec. Sec.  64.6400 through 64.6407 will not be 
required until this section is removed or contains a compliance date, 
which will not occur until the later of July 15, 2024; or after the 
Office of Management and Budget completes review of any information 
collection requirements in Sec. Sec.  64.6400 through 64.6407 that the 
Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act or the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such 
review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition 
Bureau to announce a compliance date for Sec. Sec.  64.6400 through 
64.6407 by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the Federal 
Register and to cause this subpart to be revised accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2023-25835 Filed 12-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P