84406 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 consumerfacing 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 PRA@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, contact Melissa 

Kirkel at melissa.kirkel@fcc.gov or 202– 

418–7958 or Nicholas Page at 

nicholas.page@fcc.gov or 202–418– 

2783. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an 

email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole 

Ongele, Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov. 

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/FCC23-96A1.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 FCC504@fcc.gov 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfcertification. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84408 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 textonly 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84410 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfcertification 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 selfcertification 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84412 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 traumainformed 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84414 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 postseparation. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84418 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84420 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 supportrelated 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 instore 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84422 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfexecuting 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84424 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

92. We agree with Verizon, however, 

that when a device is offered and 

financed by a third party, such as a bigbox 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84426 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfevident 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 (§ 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 multiline 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84428 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 facilitiesbased 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 facilitiesbased 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 ‘‘consumerfacing 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 ‘‘consumerfacing 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84430 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 calllog 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 selfprovisioned, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 reverseengineer 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 consumerfacing 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 wellestablished. 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- 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84432 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 consumerfacing 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 consumerfacing 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 timelimited 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84434 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 voiceonly 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 voiceonly 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 voiceonly 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 selfcertify their financial hardship in the 

National Verifier. By allowing selfcertification 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 selfcertification 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 selfcertification 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84436 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfcertification 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 openended 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84438 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sixmonth 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 sixmonth 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 lowincome 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 selfcertification 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 deenrollment 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 consumerfacing 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84440 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfcertification. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84442 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84444 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 publicfacing 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 capitalintensive 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 § 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, §§ 54.403, 

54.405, 54.409, 54.410, 54.424, and 

54.1800, and part 64, § 64.2010 and 

subpart II, to be revised accordingly. 

Compliance with § 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 § 64.6408 shall be 

required, consistent with paragraphs 

138–145 of the Report and Order, and 

to revise § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84446 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 54.400 by adding 

paragraphs (q) through (s) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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). 

■ 3. Amend § 54.403 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 54.405 by adding 

paragraphs (e)(6) and (7) to read as 

follows: 

§ 54.405 Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(6) De-enrollment from emergency 

communications support. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, upon determination by the 

Administrator that a subscriber 

receiving emergency communications 

support has exhausted the subscriber’s 

six months of support and has not 

qualified to participate in the Lifeline 

program as defined by § 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, §§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 84447 

to cause this section to be revised 

accordingly. 

■ 5. Amend § 54.409 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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, §§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 54.410 by revising 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii) and adding 

paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 7. Add § 54.424 to read as follows: 

§ 54.424 Emergency communications 

support for survivors. 

(a) Confirmation of subscriber 

eligibility. All eligible 

telecommunications carriers must 

implement policies and procedures for 

ensuring that subscribers receiving 

emergency communications support 

from the Lifeline program are eligible to 

receive such support. An eligible 

telecommunications carrier must not 

seek reimbursement for providing 

Lifeline service to a subscriber, based on 

that subscriber’s eligibility to receive 

emergency communications support, 

unless the carrier has received from the 

National Verifier: 

(1) Notice that the prospective 

subscriber meets the eligibility criteria 

set forth in § 54.409(a)(3). 

(2) A copy of the subscriber’s 

certification that complies with the 

requirements set forth in § 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 § 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. 

■ 8. Amend § 54.1800 by revising 

paragraph (j)(1) and adding paragraph 

(j)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 54.1800 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(1) At least one member of the 

household meets the qualifications in 

§ 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, §§ 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. 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84448 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES 

RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 

■ 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). 

■ 10. Amend § 64.2010 by revising 

paragraph (f) and adding paragraph (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 carrieroriginated 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. 

■ 11. Add subpart II, consisting of 

§§ 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. 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84450 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
84452 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 232 / Tuesday, December 5, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

affirmatively elects to maintain 

possession of the mobile device(s), 

unless otherwise ordered by a court. 

(c) Following a line separation under 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 64.6409 Compliance date. 

Compliance with §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2