# Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-04489 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** March 13, 2023 - **Citation:** 88 FR 15558 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 54 and 64 [WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-450; FCC 23-9; FR ID 129141] Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Affordable Connectivity Program AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) begins the process of implementing the Safe Connections Act, taking significant steps to improve access to communications services for survivors of domestic abuse and related crimes. We seek comment on the implementation of the Safe Connections Act's statutory requirement that mobile service providers separate the line of a survivor of domestic violence (and other related crimes and abuse), and any individuals in the care of the survivor, from a mobile service contract shared with an abuser within two business days after receiving a request from the survivor. We also seek comment on a proposal to require service providers to omit from consumer-facing logs of calls and text messages any records of calls or text messages to hotlines listed in a central database of hotlines that the Commission would create. We also seek comment on whether to designate the Lifeline program or the Affordable Connectivity Program as a means for providing survivors suffering financial hardship with emergency communications support for up to six months, as required by the Safe Connections Act. DATES: Comments are due on or before April 12, 2023, and reply comments are due on or before May 12, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before May 12, 2023. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-450, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/ . • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Travis Hahn, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, at Travis.Hahn@fcc.gov or Chris Laughlin, Wireline Competition Bureau, Competition Policy Division, at Chris.Laughlin@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole On'gele at (202) 418-2991. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) in WC Docket Nos. 22-238, 11-42, and 21-450, adopted on February 16, 2023 and released on February 17, 2023. The full text of this document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-9A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g. , braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g. , accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. This document contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due May 12, 2023. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Synopsis I. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 1. Reliable, safe, and affordable connectivity is critical to survivors leaving a relationship involving domestic violence, human trafficking, and other related crimes or abuse. This connectivity can assist survivors in breaking away from their abusers and finding and maintaining contact with safe support networks, including family and friends. Survivors whose devices and associated telephone numbers are part of multi-line or shared plans (commonly referred to as “family plans”), however, can face difficulties separating lines from such plans and maintaining affordable service. Further, having access to an independent phone or broadband connection is important for survivors to be able to communicate and access other available services without fear of their communications, location, or other private information being revealed to their abusers. 2. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), we continue the work we initiated in July of last year to support the connectivity needs of survivors. Specifically, we begin the process of implementing the Safe Connections Act of 2022 (Safe Connections Act), enacted this past December, which provides important statutory support for specific measures to benefit survivors. We seek comment on proposed rules that would help survivors separate service lines from accounts that include their abusers, protect the privacy of calls made by survivors to domestic abuse hotlines, and support survivors that pursue a line separation request and face financial hardship through the Commission's affordability programs. We believe that these measures will aid survivors who lack meaningful support and communications options when establishing independence from an abuser. A. Separation of Lines From Shared Mobile Service Contracts 3. In this section, we propose new rules to codify and implement the line separation provisions in the Safe Connections Act. Our proposed rules largely track the statutory language, with some additional proposals and requests for comment concerning other issues that may be implicated by line separations. 1. Definitions 4. We propose to adopt in our rules the definitions of the terms listed in new section 345 of the Communications Act, as added by the Safe Connections Act, including “covered act,” “survivor,” “abuser,” “covered provider,” “shared mobile services contract,” and “primary account holder.” We seek comment on each proposed definition and invite commenters to address our specific questions below. 5. Covered Act. We propose to define “covered act” as conduct that constitutes (1) a crime described in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291(a)), including, but not limited to, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking; (2) an act or practice described in paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102) (relating to severe forms of trafficking in persons and sex trafficking, respectively); or (3) an act under State law, Tribal law, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is similar to an offense described in clause (1) or (2) of this paragraph. Our proposed definition is identical to the term as defined in the Safe Connections Act, except that we propose to add the clause “but not limited to” in describing the crimes covered by the first clause. Section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 describes a number of crimes and abuses in addition to those crimes enumerated in the Safe Connections Act's definition of “covered act,” including abuse in later life, child abuse and neglect, child maltreatment, economic abuse, elder abuse, female genital mutilation or cutting, forced marriage, and technological abuse. Although the Safe Connections Act describes a covered act as “a crime described” in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act “including domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and sex trafficking,” it does not say that only those listed crimes may be included. We believe the best reading of the definition of “covered act” in the Safe Connections Act includes all crimes listed in section 40002(a); we see no reason why Congress would choose to protect only a subset of survivors of these crimes. We believe the second clause of the definition of “covered act” in the Safe Connections Act, which identifies specific subsections (“an act or practice described in paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000”) also supports our analysis because in contrast, the first clause of the definition of “covered act” does not limit the definition to specific subsections of section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act. We seek comment on this proposed analysis. How should the fact that the Safe Connections Act specifically mentions “[d]omestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes” in its findings in section 3, while not mentioning the other crimes and abuses listed in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act, factor into our analysis? To what extent can we include in our definition abuses described in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act that may not be “crimes” under the statute? 6. We seek comment on whether, instead of mirroring the statutory language in our definition of “covered act,” the Commission's rules should list out the crimes identified in section 40002(a) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and paragraph (11) or (12) of section 103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Would such an approach help provide additional clarity of the scope of the Safe Connections Act's protections for covered providers and survivors? Would adopting such a rule run the risk of our rules becoming inconsistent with statutory intent if Congress revises either of those statutes in the future? 7. Finally, consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we propose that a criminal conviction or any other determination of a court shall not be required for conduct to constitute a covered act. We seek comment on our proposal. The Safe Connections Act separately addresses the evidence needed to establish that a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed. We address those requirements below. 8. Survivor. We propose to define “survivor” as an individual who is not less than 18 years old and (1) against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed; or (2) who cares for another individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed (provided that the individual providing care did not commit or allegedly commit the covered act), mirroring the Safe Connections Act's definition of “survivor.” We seek comment on our proposal. Are there other situations or circumstances in which an individual should be considered a “survivor” under our rules, and if so, under what authority would we expand that definition? 9. We seek comment on how we should interpret the Safe Connections Act's language describing a survivor as an individual “who cares for another individual” against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed, to provide guidance to both covered providers and survivors. We observe that the statutory language is broad—Congress did not limit this provision to only those situations in which an individual is providing care to family members, minors, dependents, or those residing in the same household, when it could have chosen to do so. It also did not provide direction on how to otherwise determine when an individual is providing “care” for another individual. Should we define what it means to “care for” another person or what it means to be “in the care of” another individual, and if so, what should that definition be? Is there a common understanding of what it means to “care for” or be “in the care” of another person? Has the meaning of “in the care of” or a comparable phrase been defined elsewhere in statute or regulation that could appropriately be used for reference in the present context? 10. Absent a common understanding or similar definition to reference, we believe that at a minimum, this phrase should be understood to encompass any individuals who are part of the same household, including adult children, as well as adults who are older, and those who are in the care of another individual by valid court order or power of attorney. To support this interpretation, we tentatively conclude that “household” should have the same meaning as it does in § 54.400 of our rules. We seek comment on our proposed interpretation. Is there any reason to conclude that Congress intended this phrase to be interpreted more narrowly, for example, to include only those under the age of 18 for whom an individual is the parent, guardian, or caretaker? We tentatively conclude that the Safe Connections Act contemplates that an individual who is the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a person over the age of 18 qualifies as someone who provides care for another person and, thus, as a “survivor” when a covered act is committed against the person for whom the individual cares. Do commenters agree, or does the Safe Connections Act contemplate that any such persons over the age of 18 would be considered “survivors” in their own right? Would interpreting the Safe Connections Act, and our rules, in any of the ways we have discussed narrow or broaden the applicability of the protections in a way not intended by Congress? If we conclude that certain persons over the age of 18 can qualify as being in the care of another individual, should we permit those persons to object to their line being separated following a line separation request by the “survivor” who cares for them? If so, what sort of notice or opportunity to object must covered providers give to these users? We seek comment on how best to interpret this statutory language so as to provide the protections that Congress intended for individuals who are victims of a covered act. 11. Abuser. We propose to define “abuser” for purposes of our rules as an individual who has committed or allegedly committed a covered act against (1) an individual who seeks relief under section 345 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules; or (2) an individual in the care of an individual who seeks relief under section 345 of the Communications Act and the Commission's implementing rules, mirroring the substance of the Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on our proposal. Can commenters identify any reason to depart from the statutory definition of “abuser”? We note that we do not intend our definition to serve as independent evidence of, or establish legal liability in regards to, any alleged crime or act of abuse, and propose to adopt this definition for purposes of implementing the Safe Connections Act only. We seek comment on this proposed approach. 12. Covered Provider. We propose to define “covered provider” as a provider of “a private mobile service or commercial mobile service, as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. 332(d),” consistent with the Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on our proposal. Section 332(d) defines “commercial mobile service” as “any mobile service (as defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A) to the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission,” and defines “private mobile service” as “any mobile service (as defined in [47 U.S.C. 153]) that is not a commercial mobile service or the functional equivalent of a commercial mobile service, as specified by regulation by the Commission.” 13. We tentatively conclude that covered providers would include both facilities-based mobile network operators, as well as resellers/mobile virtual network operators. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on whether Congress intended the line separation obligation to apply to all providers of commercial mobile service or private mobile service, as the Commission might interpret and apply those definitions, regardless of underlying technology used to provide the service ( e.g., whether provided through land, mobile, or satellite stations). We further seek comment on whether we should interpret the statutory definition of “covered provider” to include providers of mobile broadband service that do not also offer mobile voice service, and if so, whether implementation of the line separation obligation would differ for those providers. If so, how would it differ? 14. Shared Mobile Service Contract. We propose to define “shared mobile service contract” as a mobile service contract for an account that includes not less than two lines of service and does not include enterprise services offered by a covered provider. We seek comment on our proposal, which mirrors the Safe Connections Act's definition except insofar as it replaces the phrase “not less than 2 consumers” with “not less than two lines of service.” It is our understanding that mobile service contracts are typically structured around the number of lines of service associated with an account rather than the number of consumers. We invite comment on this proposal. We tentatively conclude that a “line” includes all of the services associated with that line under the shared mobile service contract, regardless of their classification, including voice, text, and data services, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We also tentatively conclude that a “line of service” under a shared mobile service contract is one that is linked to a telephone number, even if the services provided over that line of service are not voice services. We seek comment on our analysis, and whether we should provide additional guidance on the bounds of “line of service” in implementing the Safe Connections Act. 15. If we do not interpret “consumers” to mean “lines,” as proposed, we seek comment on how providers would verify the number of consumers on an account. Would requiring covered providers to verify the number of consumers rather than the number of lines possibly hamper a survivor's ability to obtain a line separation? If we keep the statutory terminology of “consumers,” would there be additional privacy concerns, e.g., because covered providers would have to collect information about the additional consumers on shared mobile service contracts (including minors who may use the line) other than the primary account holder? How burdensome would such additional information collection requirements be for covered providers, particularly small providers? 16. We tentatively conclude that “shared mobile service contract” includes mobile service contracts for voice, text, and data services offered by covered providers, as well as both pre-paid and post-paid accounts, to the extent that a service contract exists. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. Do covered providers offer pre-paid contracts for accounts that include at least two lines? 17. We observe that the definition of “shared mobile service contract” explicitly excludes “enterprise services.” We tentatively conclude that enterprise services generally entail those products or services specifically offered to entities to support and manage business operations, which may provide greater security, integration, support, or other features than are ordinarily available to mass market customers, and would exclude services marketed and sold on a standardized basis to residential customers and small businesses. Do commenters agree? We believe interpreting the exclusion for “enterprise services” in this way would address the needs of survivors who use a line on a shared mobile service contract that may be structured under a family-run small business or paid for by a business account owned by the abuser, for example. We seek comment on our approach, and whether we should define “enterprise services” differently to address the needs of survivors. 18. Primary Account Holder. We propose to define “primary account holder” as “an individual who is a party to a mobile service contract with a covered provider,” mirroring the definition in the Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on our proposal, and whether there are any considerations that should cause us to depart from the statutory definition. Are there situations in which there is more than a single individual who is party to a mobile service contract? 2. Requirement To Separate Lines Upon Request 19. Processing of Line Separation Requests. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, for shared mobile service contracts under which a survivor and abuser each use a line, our proposed rule would require covered providers, not later than two business days after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, to (1) separate the line of the survivor, and the line of any individual in the care of the survivor, from the shared mobile service contract, or (2) separate the line of the abuser from the shared mobile service contract. 20. Because the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to implement line separation requests from survivors for shared mobile service contracts “under which the survivor and the abuser each use a line, ” we propose to interpret this statutory language to mean that neither the abuser nor the survivor needs to be the primary account holder for a line separation to be effectuated, regardless of whose line is separated from the account. We also believe that a person who does not use a line on an account—but is a “survivor” under the statute because the person is someone who cares for another individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed—would be able to request a line separation because the definition of “survivor” allows that person to stand in for the individual in their care. Additionally, we also believe that the structure of the Safe Connections Act gives survivors discretion to request separation from the account of either the line of the survivor (and the lines of any individuals in the survivor's care) or the line of the abuser, but we seek comment on whether the covered provider also retains the discretion to determine whether to separate the line of the abuser or the line(s) of the survivor. We seek comment on our proposed interpretations, and on their potential implications and challenges. For instance, what implementation challenges will covered providers face, if any, if the survivor seeks to remove the abuser from the account but neither the survivor nor the abuser is the primary account holder? Do covered providers have existing processes to remove a primary account holder from an account and designate another user as the primary account holder, such as following the death of a primary account holder, that could be applied if the survivor seeks to remove the abuser from the account and the abuser is the primary account holder? 21. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers, upon receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, to separate the line of the survivor and the line of any individual in the care of the survivor. As with the definition of “survivor,” the Safe Connections Act does not explain how to determine who qualifies as “in the care of” the survivor for the purposes of line separation requests. We believe that we should adopt the same approach for making this determination as we do for interpreting the definition of “survivor.” Unlike the definition of “survivor,” however, we believe that for the purposes of line separation requests, an individual “in the care” of a survivor need not be someone against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed. As previously discussed, the Safe Connections Act defines “survivor” as including an individual at least 18 years old who “cares for another individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed ,” but it requires covered providers to separate the lines of both the survivor and “ any individual in the care of the survivor,” upon request of the survivor. We propose to interpret these provisions to mean that a covered provider must separate the lines, upon request, of any individuals in the care of survivors (however that is defined) without regard to whether a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed against the individuals in the care of the survivor. We seek comment on our proposed interpretation of these provisions. 22. Under the Safe Connections Act, covered providers must effectuate line separations not later than two business days after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor. We tentatively conclude covered providers should have two full business days following the day the request was made to complete a line separation request, which aligns with the Commission's rules governing computation of time related to Commission actions. Should we adopt another meaning for what constitutes two business days, such as 48 hours from the time the request was made for requests made during business hours, and 48 hours from the start of the next business day for requests not made during business hours? Should we encourage covered providers to effectuate separations in less than two business days, if feasible? We seek comment on whether we should establish a time limit or other guidelines for how long covered providers have to determine whether a line separation request is incomplete. Because line separation requests may be time sensitive, we believe that, if feasible, covered providers should review requests to make this determination promptly, and ideally make this determination and either effectuate a line separation or reject an incomplete request within the two business day timeframe established by the statute. We believe this will enable survivors to quickly take steps to correct errors or submit a new request, if appropriate. Once a covered provider determines a request is complete and that there is no other basis for rejection, we believe the statute is clear that the provider has no more than two business days, however that is calculated, to effectuate the request, and we seek comment on this conclusion. 23. We also seek comment on the reasons covered providers may reject a request and what survivors can do upon receiving a rejection. At a minimum, we expect that covered providers may reject a request because the provider was unable to authenticate that the survivor is the user of the specified line, the request is missing required verification information or documentation, information or documentation submitted by the survivor is invalid, or the line separation is operationally or technically infeasible by the provider. We believe that any corrections, resubmissions, or selected alternatives for obtaining a line separation should be processed within the two-business-day timeframe established by the Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on how to balance our interest in allowing survivors to make repeated requests to obtain a line separation with our interest in preventing fraud on multiline shared accounts. Should we require covered providers to establish procedures for determining whether repeated requests are fraudulent and decline to effectuate line separations in those instances? 24. Operational and Technical Infeasibility. Under the Safe Connections Act, covered providers who cannot operationally or technically effectuate a line separation request are relieved of the obligation to effectuate line separation requests. Because this provision specifies that covered providers are only relieved of the “requirement to effectuate a line separation request,” we believe that all covered providers must offer the ability for survivors to submit requests for line separations described in the statute even if the provider may not be able to effectuate such separations in all instances. We seek comment on this interpretation. 25. We seek comment to understand what operational and technical limitations covered providers may face. We expect that many covered providers already have processes in place to effectuate line separations and seek comment on this belief. We tentatively conclude that any line separation a covered provider can complete within two business days under its existing capabilities, as those may change over time, would not be operationally or technically infeasible under the Safe Connections Act. We also believe that the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to take all reasonable steps to effectuate any line separation requests they receive in accordance with the statute and the rules we adopt, and we seek comment on how we would determine whether the steps taken meet this standard. Must covered providers change their policies and procedures and invest in equipment and technology upgrades to be able to effectuate all or a greater number of line separations? Should we instead simply define what circumstances qualify as operational and technical limitations and require covered providers to take steps to effectuate line separations in all other circumstances? We seek comment on the potential approaches, including their costs and burdens on covered providers, including small providers. Regardless of any requirements we establish, we recognize that there may be instances when operational and technical limitations prevent covered providers from effectuating the types of line separations established by the Safe Connections Act or from doing so precisely as the statute and our rules require. We believe that in these instances, the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to provide the survivor with alternatives to submitting a line separation request, including starting a new line of service. We also believe that in these circumstances, covered providers should offer, allow survivors to elect, and effectuate any alternative options that would allow survivors to obtain a line separation. For instance, some covered providers may not be able to separate an abuser's line from an account if the abuser is the primary account holder, but would be able to separate the survivor's line from the account. Likewise, some covered providers may be capable of processing line separation requests, but not in the middle of a billing cycle. 3. Submission of Line Separation Requests 26. Information Required to Process Line Separation Requests. The Safe Connections Act requires that survivors submit to covered providers certain information with their line separation requests, and we propose to codify those requirements in our rules. First, under our proposed rule, a survivor submitting a line separation request must expressly indicate that the survivor is requesting relief from the covered provider under section 345 of the Communications Act and our rules and identify each line that should be separated. In cases where a survivor is seeking separation of the survivor's line, the request must state that the survivor is the user of that specific line. In cases where a survivor is seeking separation of a line of an individual under the care of the survivor, the request must also include an affidavit setting forth that the individual is in the care of the survivor and is the user of that specific line. In support of efforts to deter fraud and abuse, we seek comment on whether we should mandate requirements for any affidavits that are submitted. At a minimum, we believe that affidavits should be signed and dated. Should they also be notarized? Can or must we rely on the alternative declaration mechanism provided for by 28 U.S.C. 1746? Should affidavits regarding individuals in the care of a survivor include the individual's name, relationship to the survivor, or other information? Are there privacy concerns with potentially requiring this additional information? 27. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we also tentatively conclude that when a survivor is instead requesting that a covered provider separate the line of the abuser from the shared mobile service contract, the line separation request should also state that the abuser is the user of that specific line. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Though not required under the Safe Connections Act, should we require that the line separation request include an affidavit that the abuser is the user of a specific line, rather than just a statement? We seek comment on whether covered providers need any other information to effectuate line separation requests. Commenters should address any privacy concerns from requiring such additional information. 28. Because the Safe Connections Act requires that covered providers “shall” separate the lines requested by a survivor after receiving a completed line separation request, we believe that this statutory language is best read as requiring the covered provider to complete the line separation as long as the request provides the information required by the Safe Connections Act and our implementing rules, and the line separation is operationally and technically feasible. In other words, we do not believe that the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to take any steps to separately verify the legitimacy of the information provided; we seek comment, however, on whether the statute permits them to do so, and if so, what the implications are for both covered providers and survivors. We seek comment on our proposed interpretation of this provision. What would be the benefits and drawbacks of such an approach? 29. The Safe Connections Act does not address whether or how covered providers should authenticate the identity of a survivor to ensure that a person making a line separation request is actually a user of a line on the account. We recognize that unless a survivor is the primary account holder, covered providers may have limited information about the survivor and therefore fewer methods to authenticate the survivor's identity. We also appreciate that many survivors may not be in a position to supply government issued identification or other official identifying information to covered providers for authentication purposes. We are concerned that, absent any form of authentication, line separation requests could be easily abused by bad actors with significant consequences to consumers, similar to instances of subscriber identify module (SIM) swap and port-out fraud. We note, however, that in response to the Notice of Inquiry, some commenters argued that maximizing the ability of survivors to access any benefits the Commission establishes should supersede fraud and abuse concerns, at least absent evidence of widespread fraud or abuse. We seek comment on the appropriate balance between these two competing public interests. 30. We seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to authenticate the identity of a survivor to verify that the survivor is actually the user of a line on the account before processing a line separation request. When the survivor is the primary account holder or a user designated to have account authority by the primary account holder (designated user), we believe covered providers should authenticate survivors just as they would any other primary account holder or designated user, and we seek comment on this proposal. If the survivor is not the primary account holder or a designated user, we seek comment on whether we should designate the forms of authentication that are appropriate for covered providers to use for line separation requests, and if so, which forms of authentication we should designate. We believe in this particular context that SMS text-based and app-based authentications could be useful because they rely on the user having access to the device associated with the line. We also seek comment on whether call detail information could be a viable alternative in these circumstances because it requires knowledge of call history by the user. Are there other authentication methods that would be both feasible for survivors and secure? We observe that some comments received in response to our 2021 SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud NPRM discussed security shortcomings of these and other authentication mechanisms, and several commenters in that proceeding urged us to give providers flexibility in deciding which forms of authentication to use to reduce costs and burdens and avoid creating a roadmap for bad actors. To what extent should the concerns raised in that proceeding guide our decision making here? Should we allow covered providers flexibility to determine which forms of authentication to offer? If so, should we require covered providers to offer multiple forms of authentication and give survivors the opportunity to authenticate using any method available? How burdensome would it be for covered providers if we were to require them to authenticate that survivors are users of a line on a shared mobile account, particularly for small providers? How burdensome would such a requirement be on survivors seeking line separation requests, and would such requirements be consistent with Congressional intent? Finally, we seek comment on how any authentication process we establish for line separations should intersect with any identity verification process survivors must undergo to access the designated program. 31. We recognize that covered providers may require additional information to assign the survivor as a primary account holder. Beyond the information already discussed, what information would covered providers need from survivors to establish them as primary account holders? We note that certain information, like full residential address, billing address, Social Security Number, and financial information can be extremely sensitive or difficult to provide for survivors that may be trying to physically and financially distance themselves from their abusers. Residential address information can be particularly problematic because survivors may not be residing at one location or have a fixed address, and if any address information is exposed, it may allow an abuser to locate a survivor. If a survivor is unable to provide all the information that is typically required to establish a primary account holder, should we require covered providers to modify the information necessary to accommodate survivors? If so, what information should we permit covered providers to require from survivors? If not, are there adequate alternative options for survivors to obtain needed communications services? 32. Additionally, although we appreciate that many survivors may have limited information about the abuser and the account associated with the mobile service contract, we seek comment on whether we should require survivors who are not the primary account holder to submit other information to ensure that line separations are being processed for the correct account and to minimize fraudulent line separations. We specifically seek comment on whether we should require survivors to submit one or more of the following pieces of information about the account or primary account holder even if the primary account holder is the abuser: account number, primary phone number associated with the account, zip code, address associated with the account, and PIN or password associated with the account. 33. Documentation Demonstrating Survivor Status. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, our proposed rule would require survivors seeking a line separation to submit information that verifies that an individual who uses a line under the shared mobile service contract ( i.e., an “abuser”) has committed or allegedly committed a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor's care. To meet this requirement, survivors must submit one or more of the eligible documents prescribed in the Safe Connections Act: (1) a copy of a signed affidavit from a licensed medical or mental health care provider, licensed military medical or mental health care provider, licensed social worker, victim services provider, or licensed military victim services provider, or an employee of a court, acting within the scope of that person's employment; or (2) a copy of a police report, statements provided by police, including military police, to magistrates or judges, charging documents, protective or restraining orders, military protective orders, or any other official record that documents the covered act. At a minimum, we believe that the documentation provided should clearly indicate the name of the abuser and the name of the survivor and make an affirmative statement indicating that the abuser actually or allegedly committed an act that qualifies as a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the care of a survivor. Are there circumstances in which a survivor would not be able to obtain documentation that provides this information? Should we require that the documentation include any additional identifying information about the abuser or the survivor, such as an address or date of birth? What potential privacy implications would such a requirement raise, and would requiring such information be consistent with the Safe Connections Act? As a way to minimize fraud and abuse of the line separation process, we believe that, to the extent the documentation includes identifying information about the abuser or the survivor, covered providers should confirm that the information matches any comparable identifying information in the covered provider's records when processing a line separation request. We also seek comment on whether we should set requirements for the timeliness of evidence showing a covered act was committed. For instance, should we require that documentation be dated, or show the covered act occurred within a certain period prior to the request? If so, how long? We seek comment on these potential approaches and whether they are consistent with the Congressional intent of the Safe Connections Act. 34. We acknowledge that survivors may have difficulty securing the documents specified by the Safe Connections Act to demonstrate that an individual using a line on a shared mobile service contract has committed or allegedly committed a covered act, or doing so in a timely manner. In the Notice of Inquiry, we asked whether allowing survivors to submit an affidavit regarding their survivor status would provide sufficient verification and whether we should permit other options if a survivor cannot obtain the required documents. Some commenters expressed support for survivor affidavits and also argued that survivors should be permitted to submit affidavits from other qualified third parties not prescribed in the Safe Connections Act, such as shelters and advocacy organizations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Safe Connections Act, which was adopted by Congress after the Notice of Inquiry, clearly specifies the documents survivors can submit to demonstrate survivor status while specifically preserving the right of states to set less stringent requirements. We seek comment on whether the Safe Connections Act permits the Commission to establish other forms of verification that a survivor can submit, and if so, whether we should permit other forms of verification. 35. As discussed above, we believe that the Safe Connections Act is best read as requiring covered providers to complete a line separation as long as the line separation request provides the statutorily required information, without requiring covered providers to separately verify the information provided. We recognize that many covered providers may not have the expertise to determine the authenticity of such documents and that it would undermine the goals of the Safe Connections Act if a covered provider denied a line separation based on an incorrect determination that verification documents submitted by a survivor are not authentic. Nonetheless, we seek comment on whether and to what extent we should require or permit covered providers to validate the authenticity of any documents meant to verify survivor status that they receive in order to minimize the avenues that bad actors can use to commit fraud through the line separation process. 36. Finally, we propose to include in our rules the Safe Connections Act's proviso that section 345 of the Communications Act (establishing the line separation process) “shall not affect any law or regulation of a State providing communications protections for survivors (or any similar category of individuals) that has less stringent requirements for providing evidence of a covered act (or any similar category of conduct) than this subsection,” and seek comment on our proposal. 37. Election of the Manner of Communication from Covered Providers. Under the Safe Connections Act, a covered provider must “allow the survivor to elect in the manner in which the covered provider may—(i) contact the survivor, or designated representative of the survivor, in response to the request, if necessary; or (ii) notify the survivor, or designated representative of the survivor, of the inability of the covered provider to complete the line separation.” We propose to codify this requirement in our rules and seek comment on how best to understand it. We tentatively conclude that this requirement simply obligates covered providers to allow survivors to select, at the time they are submitting a line separation request, the manner the covered provider must use to communicate with a survivor after the survivor submits the request. We further believe that covered providers must ask survivors to provide the appropriate contact information with their request, and, if applicable, their designated representative. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. 38. Confidential and Secure Treatment of Personal Information. We propose to require covered providers, including any officers, directors, and employees—as well as covered providers' vendors, agents, or contractors that receive or process line separation requests with the survivor's consent, or as needed to effectuate the request—to treat any information submitted by a survivor as part of a line separation request as confidential and securely dispose of the information not later than 90 days after receiving the information, consistent with the Safe Connections Act. Our proposal mirrors the Safe Connections Act, except that we propose to clarify that “vendor” as used in the Safe Connections Act includes “contractors” who may receive line separation requests in their provision of services to covered providers. We believe that this interpretation of “vendor” reflects the business practices of covered providers and will mitigate privacy risks to survivors. We seek comment on our proposal. 39. The Safe Connections Act requires confidential treatment and disposal of information submitted by a survivor “[n]otwithstanding section 222(c)(2)” of the Communications Act, which in turn requires telecommunications carriers to “disclose customer proprietary network information, upon affirmative written request by the customer, to any person designated by the customer.” The Communications Act defines “customer proprietary network information” (or CPNI) as “information that relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination, location, and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by a customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer relationship,” and “information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a carrier,” but does not include subscriber list information. Thus, to the extent that any information a survivor submits as part of a line separation request would be considered CPNI, we believe the Safe Connections Act requires that such information (as well as information submitted by a survivor that would not be considered CPNI) should be treated confidentially and disposed of securely. We seek comment on our analysis. How should we implement the Safe Connections Act's requirement that information submitted by survivors be treated as confidential and be securely disposed of “[n]otwithstanding section 222(c)(2) of the [Communications] Act”? 40. We seek comment on how we should interpret the requirement that covered providers treat information submitted by survivors as “confidential,” and what requirements, if any, we should impose to ensure such information is disposed of “securely.” We are mindful that requiring and identifying specific data protection mechanisms can provide a roadmap to bad actors and may also be overtaken by new technological advancements. Given that, what guidance can we provide to covered providers as to what would be considered “confidential” treatment and “secure” disposal under the Safe Connections Act? At a minimum, we believe that treating such information as confidential means not disclosing or permitting access to such information except as to the individual survivor submitting the line separation request, anyone that the survivor specifically designates, or specific types of third parties ( i.e., vendors, contractors, and agents) as needed to effectuate the request. Do commenters agree? Are there other specific actions we should require covered providers to take or not take to ensure that information remains confidential? For instance, should we require covered providers to maintain line separation request information in a separate database or restrict employee access to only those who need access to that information to effectuate the request? Should we require such information to be stored with encryption? Can we construe the obligation on providers to “treat” information submitted in connection with a line separation request as “confidential” to include an obligation not to use or process such information for certain purposes ( e.g., marketing)? If so, what should be permissible purposes for the use or processing of such information, other than effectuating the request, if any? What mechanisms, if any, should we require covered providers to use to ensure that confidential information is disposed of securely? How burdensome would any such requirements be on covered providers, particularly small providers? Should unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information submitted by survivors as part of a line separation request be considered evidence that a covered provider does not treat such information confidentially? 41. Consistent with the Safe Connections Act, we also propose to make clear that the requirement to securely dispose of information submitted by a survivor within 90 days does not prohibit a covered provider from maintaining a record that verifies that a survivor fulfilled the conditions of a line separation request for longer than 90 days. We believe that the best interpretation of this provision presumes that any such records will not contain any information submitted by survivors, which, as discussed, would be deemed confidential and subject to secure disposal within 90 days. Nonetheless, we propose that covered providers also treat such records as confidential and securely dispose of them. We seek comment on our proposals. Should we require covered providers to dispose of the records verifying the fulfillment of a line separation request within a certain timeframe, and if so, what would be an appropriate timeframe? Are there reasons why a covered provider, or a survivor, would need to retain such records of fulfilling the conditions of a line separation request, beyond their potential need for enrollment in the designated program providing emergency communications support? 42. Means for Submitting Line Separation Requests. The Safe Connections Act directs covered providers to “offer a survivor the ability to submit a line separation request . . . through secure remote means that are easily navigable, provided that remote options are commercially available and technically feasible.” We propose to codify this requirement in our rules and seek comment on how to implement it. 43. Although the Safe Connections Act does not define what constitutes “remote means,” we tentatively conclude that it is a mechanism for submitting a line separation request that does not require the survivor to interact in person with an employee of the covered provider at a physical location. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. For example, we believe that requiring a visit to a brick and mortar store would not constitute remote means. Conversely, we believe that a form on a covered provider's website with the ability to input required information and attach necessary documents would constitute a remote means. We also believe that submissions via email, a form on a provider's mobile app, a chat feature on a provider's website, interactive voice response (IVR) phone calls, and postal mail would constitute remote means. Would a live telephone interaction, text message communication, or video chat with a customer service representative constitute remote means as contemplated by the Safe Connections Act? We seek comment on our proposed analysis of what constitutes remote means. In identifying permissible remote means, should we take into consideration whether the means are consistent with or similar to the means survivors must use to apply for the designated program discussed below to minimize the burdens on survivors? We note that any remote means must permit survivors to submit any necessary documentation, although we seek comment on whether covered providers should be able to offer means that allow or require survivors to initiate a request using one method (such as an IVR phone call) and submit the documentation through another method (such as via email). We also seek comment on whether we should require providers to accept documentation in any format, including, for example, pictures of documents or screenshots. In addition, we tentatively conclude that the Safe Connections Act would permit covered providers to offer survivors means that are not considered remote so long as the provider does not require survivors to use those non-remote means or make it harder for survivors to access remote means than to access non-remote means. 44. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to offer remote means for submitting line separation requests only if such means are “technically feasible” and “commercially available.” As a general matter, are there remote means for survivors to submit line separation requests that are technically feasible to implement and commercially available for all covered providers, including small providers? If so, which ones? If not, what steps must covered providers, including small providers, take to make remote means technically feasible or how long before they are commercially available? Relatedly, how long will it take covered providers to select, implement, test, and launch remote means for line separation requests, and how does that timeline differ depending on the potential requirements we discuss above? Can covered providers adopt or modify existing systems that they use in other aspects of their business to provide survivors the ability to submit remote requests? Additionally, what are the costs associated with this process and the varying alternative requirements, and do they differ for small providers? 45. The Safe Connections Act requires that the means of submission, in addition to being remote, must be “secure,” and we seek comment on the meaning of this term. We tentatively conclude that any means a covered provider offers survivors to submit a line separation request, including non-remote means, must be secure, and seek comment on our tentative conclusion. We believe that, at a minimum, secure means are those that prevent unauthorized access to or disclosure of the information and documentation submitted with the line separation request during the submission process. Should we define what would constitute “secure” in greater detail—and if so, how—or should we allow covered providers flexibility to adopt means they deem “secure”? Specifically, should we require that any electronic means of submission use encrypted transmission? Are there particular means that we should deem to be unsecure in all instances? As with the Commission's CPNI rules, should unauthorized disclosure of, or access to, information submitted as part of a line separation request be considered evidence that a covered provider does not provide a “secure” means of transmission? 46. The means of submitting a request must also be “easily navigable,” and we invite comment on the meaning of this phrase. As an initial matter, we tentatively conclude the means for submitting a request must be easily navigable for individuals with disabilities, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Does easily navigable also mean that any user interface or forms related to line separation requests must be easy for survivors to comprehend and use? Does it also mean that any user interface or form must clearly identify the information and documentation that a survivor must include with their request and that survivors must be able to easily insert or attach that information? Should we develop and mandate a standardized form that covered providers must use or direct stakeholders to work together to develop such a form? Additionally, does the phrase “easily navigable” place an obligation on covered providers to make the means of making a line separation request easily findable and accessible by survivors? 47. We seek comment on whether we should adopt additional requirements concerning the mechanisms for submitting line separation requests to ensure that all survivors have the ability to submit such requests and can obtain line separation in a timely manner. To what extent should covered providers be required to make available remote means that are accessible to individuals with disabilities? Does the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) already require that all or certain means for submitting line separation requests be accessible for individuals with disabilities? To what extent should the means through which a covered provider permits survivors to submit line separation requests be made available in the languages in which a covered provider advertises its services? Should the means covered providers make available for submitting line separation requests ask survivors for their preferred language from among those in which the covered provider advertises? Additionally, we invite feedback on whether we should require covered providers to offer more than one means to submit a line separation request and ensure any such additional means address the needs of survivors who may be using different technologies or who may have different levels of digital literacy. Alternatively, should we designate one specific mean or process that all covered providers must offer to fulfill these obligations, such as a form on the provider's website, but also allow covered providers to offer other additional means or processes if they so choose? We seek comment on how costly and burdensome any such requirements would be for covered providers, particularly small providers. 48. Given the difficult circumstances that survivors may be experiencing at the time they make a line separation request, we believe that providers should make it easy for survivors to choose the best communications service offerings for their needs. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to allow survivors to indicate their service choices when they are submitting a line separation request. If so, we seek comment on what constitutes the full scope of service options covered providers should be required to offer to survivors, but tentatively conclude that the Safe Connections Act makes clear that survivors can seek to: (1) start a new line of service; (2) keep the existing service plan, with the abuser's line separated from the account; (3) select a new plan from among all commercially available plans the covered provider offers for which the survivor may be eligible, including any prepaid plans; (4) obtain benefits through the designated program if available through the provider; (5) switch providers by porting the lines of the survivor and anyone on the survivor's account to a new provider selected by the survivor, if technically feasible; and (6) move the line to an existing account of another person with service from the covered provider. What are the pros and cons of our proposed approach? For example, would this requirement maximize the simplicity for survivors navigating the line separation process? Conversely, how burdensome would this requirement be on covered providers, particularly small providers? Are there commercially available tools that would allow covered providers to implement this requirement? Is such a requirement otherwise technically feasible? 49. Assistance with Completing Line Separation Requests. While the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to effectuate line separations after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, we observe that it permits survivors to indicate a designated representative for communications regarding line separation requests. Does the Safe Connections Act permit survivors to rely on assistance from their designated representative or other individuals, such as employees of victim service providers, to prepare and submit line separation requests? If not, why not, and practically speaking, how would covered providers know whether a survivor relied on such assistance? If the Safe Connections Act does allow such assistance, should we establish guidelines regarding this practice? For example, should we require those assisting survivors to include in the request their name and relationship to the survivor, along with a statement that the person assisted the survivor? If so, should we require providers to request this information through the means they make available for survivors to submit requests? What would be the costs to covered providers of any such requirements, particularly for smaller providers? 4. Notices, Notifications, and Other Communications 50. We next seek comment on the types of information that must or should be communicated to survivors and other consumers, and on the ways covered providers may convey this information. We believe the Safe Connections Act contemplates three ways that covered providers may communicate information to survivors: (1) a notice that must be made readily available to all consumers through the covered providers' public-facing communication avenues, such a notice on a provider's website (Notice to Consumers); (2) information that must be provided at the time a survivor is submitting a line separation request, such as in the instructions for submitting a line separation request or on the form used for submitting a request (Concurrent Notice to Survivors); and (3) notifications that must be delivered to survivors after they submit a line separation request, such as in a confirmation email for the line separation submission or a later follow-up message regarding the status of the submission (Post-Request Notifications). 51. Notice to Consumers. Recognizing that the ability to separate a line from a shared mobile account will only assist those survivors who are aware of the option, the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to “make information about the options and process” for a line separation request “readily available to consumers: (1) on the website and the mobile application of the provider; (2) in physical stores; and (3) in other forms of public-facing consumer communication.” We propose to adopt these requirements in our rules as a Notice to Consumers, and seek comment on our proposal and its implementation, including the burdens on covered providers. 52. We seek comment on the specific methods and processes covered providers should use to provide the Notice to Consumers, and on the costs and burdens associated with each of these proposed requirements, particularly for small providers. First, we seek comment on whether we should provide additional guidance to covered providers regarding how to make the notice readily available to consumers “on the website and mobile application of the provider.” For example, should we provide guidance regarding where and how this information should be made available on covered providers' websites and mobile applications? Should we specifically require covered providers to post a link to the notice on their website homepage or mobile application home screen? Would a prominent link under a “customer service” page or “support” section of a covered provider's website be “readily available”? Should we allow covered providers to determine the most appropriate method for making the notice available, as long as it is prominent and easy for consumers to locate? 53. Second, we seek comment on whether we should provide additional guidance to covered providers as to how they should make the Notice to Consumers readily available in “physical stores.” For example, does this language require covered providers to furnish information only upon consumer request? Or should we require covered providers to post prominent signage and/or have handouts explaining availability of the line separation option? At a minimum, we believe any flyers, signage, or other handouts should be clearly visible to consumers and easy to understand and access. We also tentatively conclude that covered providers should provide the notice in all languages in which the provider advertises within that particular store and on its website, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 54. Third, we seek comment on how covered providers should implement the requirement to provide the Notice to Consumers through “other forms of public-facing consumer communication.” What other forms of public-facing communication do covered providers employ? Would covered provider bills, advertisements, emails, or social media accounts be covered under this category? If so, how should covered providers make the notice readily available through these avenues or other potential public awareness campaigns? We seek comment on what specific methods will be most effective in helping covered providers disseminate information to consumers about line separation availability. 55. We also seek comment on whether we should specify what information covered providers must include in the Notice to Consumers “about the options and process” for line separation requests or whether we should instead allow covered providers to determine what information to include. If we should prescribe the content of the notice, what information would be most useful to consumers? We tentatively conclude we should require covered providers to inform consumers that the Safe Connections Act does not permit covered providers to make a line separation conditional upon the imposition of penalties, fees, or other requirements or limitations, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Should we require covered providers to inform consumers about who qualifies as a survivor and how a survivor can request a line separation, or to explain any operational or technical limitations for completing line separation requests and alternative options survivors can choose to obtain a line separation? Should we require covered providers to inform consumers of the service options that may be available to them, or what their financial responsibilities will be after a line separation? 56. Although the Safe Connections Act does not require covered providers to include information regarding the designated program in the Notice to Consumers, we tentatively conclude that they should include at least basic information concerning the availability of the designated program in the notice. Given that the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to give survivors more detailed information about the designated program upon receiving a line separation request, do commenters agree with this approach? As we noted in our Notice of Inquiry, “[s]urvivors often face severe financial hardship when attempting to establish financial independence from an abuser,” and concerns about affordability could hold back some survivors from separating their line from an abuser's. We believe that requiring covered providers to include information about the availability of emergency communications support to help with the costs of a separated line in the Notice to Consumers may make the difference for some survivors in choosing whether or not to pursue a line separation, is consistent with the goals of the Safe Connections Act, and would be minimally burdensome for covered providers. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions and proposed approach. Are there other materials or information about line separation requests that would be beneficial for covered providers to share with survivors concurrently with the Notice to Consumers? 57. Concurrent Notice to Survivors. The Safe Connections Act requires a covered provider to notify a survivor seeking a line separation “through remote means, provided that remote means are commercially available and technically feasible,” and “in clear and accessible language[,] that the covered provider may contact the survivor, or designated representative of the survivor, to confirm the line separation, or if the covered provider is unable to complete the line separation for any reason.” In addition to proposing that we codify this requirement in our rules, we seek comment on its meaning. We tentatively conclude that this requirement only establishes an obligation that a covered provider inform the survivor, at the time the survivor submits a line separation request, that the provider may contact the survivor, or the survivor's designated representative, to confirm the line separation or inform the survivor if the provider is unable to complete the line separation. We believe covered providers should inform survivors that the covered provider may contact the survivor as part of any instructional information provided at the time of a line separation request. To the extent feasible, we also believe this information should be provided proximate to the moment when the survivor is asked to provide contact information and elect the manner the provider must use for future communications. We believe that this approach will allow survivors to make an informed choice regarding which contact information and manner of communication is best given their particular circumstances. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and approach. Is there any reason providers should instead provide this information to survivors in a Post-Request Notification? If yes, should we require that notification be delivered immediately upon submission of the request? Should we require providers to provide this information in both a Post-Request Notification and as a Concurrent Notice to Survivors? Regardless of how the information is delivered, should we allow or require covered providers to deliver it using the same means that the survivor used to submit the line separation request? Above, we tentatively conclude that covered providers may offer, and therefore that survivors may use, non-remote means to submit line separation requests. If a survivor submits a line separation request using non-remote means, does the statute allow us to, and should we, allow covered providers to deliver the required information via non-remote means, such as if the survivor consents, or must covered providers deliver the information via remote means? 58. Post-Request Notifications. As noted above, covered providers must allow survivors to select the manner in which a covered provider will communicate with the survivor about a submitted line separation request. We do not believe that covered providers must offer all manners of contact, but we do believe that covered providers must offer at least one manner of contact that is remote. Consistent with our tentative conclusion above regarding remote means of submitting line separation requests, we believe remote means of communication are those in which the covered provider does not require the survivor to interact in person with an employee of the provider at a physical location. We tentatively conclude that remote means of communication would include emails, text messages, pre-recorded voice calls, push notifications, in-app messages, and postal mail. We seek comment on this view. Are there other forms of communication that would qualify, such as live phone calls or video chats? We do not expect to prohibit covered providers from offering non-remote forms of communication. Given the potentially time-sensitive nature of line separation requests, we do not believe that covered providers should rely on communications methods that will not be delivered directly to survivors, such as notifications or messages that a survivor only may see upon logging into an online account. Additionally, we tentatively conclude that covered providers must deliver these communications in the survivor's preferred language if it is one in which the covered provider advertises. We seek comment on the costs associated with our proposed approach for covered providers, particularly for small providers. 59. The Safe Connections Act requires covered providers that receive a line separation request from a survivor to inform the survivor of the existence of the designated program that can provide emergency communications support to qualifying survivors suffering from financial hardship, who might qualify for the program, and how to participate in the program. We propose to codify this requirement and tentatively conclude that covered providers should have the flexibility to either provide this information in a Concurrent Notice to Survivors or a Post-Request Notification delivered immediately after a survivor submits a line separation request. We also seek comment on exactly what information covered providers must convey regarding the designated program. At a minimum, we expect that such material would specifically inform survivors that their participation in the designated program will be limited to six months unless they can qualify to participate in the designated program under the program's general eligibility requirements. We seek comment on whether we should direct the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), in coordination with the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau), to develop descriptions of the designated program and ways in which survivors might apply to the program, which we would share with covered providers to use for the required notice. What would be the costs to covered providers for these requirements, particularly for small providers? 60. We also propose to codify the requirement that a covered provider that cannot operationally or technically effectuate a line separation request must: (1) notify the survivor who submitted the request of that infeasibility, and (2) provide the survivor with information about other alternatives to submitting a line separation request, including starting a new line of service. We believe the statute clearly contemplates this will be delivered as a Post-Request Notification. We further believe that providers should explain, in this notification, the nature of the operational or technical limitations that are preventing the provider from completing the line separation as requested and any alternative options that would allow the survivor to obtain a line separation. We also believe that covered providers should be required to promptly notify survivors if a line separation request is rejected for any other reason. We seek comment on what information should be provided in rejection notifications, but at a minimum, we believe that covered providers should deliver a clear and concise notification that the request has been rejected with the basis for the rejection and information about how the survivor can either correct any issues, submit a new line separation request, or select alternative options to obtain a line separation, if available. The Safe Connections Act requires that covered providers deliver notifications regarding operational and technical infeasibility at the time of the request or for requests made using remote means, not later than two business days after the covered provider receives the request. We tentatively conclude that all rejection notifications should be delivered within the same timeframe. We further tentatively conclude that, if feasible, covered providers must deliver these notifications through the manner of communication selected by the survivor immediately after the covered provider receives the request. We seek comment on our proposed approach. 61. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to convey information to survivors regarding the service options that may be available to them in a Post- Request Notification, as a Concurrent Notice to Survivors, or both. We also seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to inform survivors that they can choose between keeping the devices associated with both their line and the lines of individuals in their care if they assume any payment obligations for those devices or obtaining other devices to use with the services. If so, we believe covered providers should be capable of explaining remaining financial obligations for the devices and the costs and payment options for new devices the covered provider offers. We also believe that, given the sensitive and challenging circumstances survivors may be experiencing, we should require covered providers to minimize their communications to survivors and prohibit communications that are not directly related to the line separation request, such as marketing and advertising communications that are not related to assisting survivors with understanding and selecting service options. Do commenters agree? Are there other valid, but unrelated, reasons for which a provider may need to contact the survivor? 62. Notification to Primary Account Holders and Abusers. The Safe Connections Act contemplates that primary account holders may be notified regarding successful line separations on their accounts, and we believe this notification is likely necessary in most instances, given associated account changes that will occur, including when the abuser is the primary account holder. We tentatively conclude that an abuser who is not the primary account holder must not be notified when the lines of a survivor and individuals in the care of the survivor are separated from a shared mobile service contract. At the same time, we believe it is likely the abuser must necessarily be notified, even if not the primary account holder, when the abuser's line is separated. We seek comment on our analysis here, and specifically on how we can best ensure that survivors are protected in instances when primary account holders and abusers whose lines are being separated must be informed about line separations. If a covered provider needs to notify a primary account holder or abuser whose lines will be separated, should we require them to set a uniform amount of time after receiving a line separation request in which they will provide the notice? Is it feasible to require covered providers to wait until they have approved and processed a line separation before informing primary account holders or abusers whose lines will be separated, or will covered providers need to communicate with them before that point to implement account changes? Will covered providers be able to process all necessary account and service plan changes as needed if we implement such delays? When necessary, how should primary account holders and abusers whose lines are separated be notified of any account and billing changes? Additionally, should we prescribe any particular content of these notifications? Is there any language or terms providers should avoid using when notifying primary account holders and abusers whose lines are separated? 63. Informing Survivors When Primary Account Holders and Abusers Will Receive Notification of Separations. We propose to codify the Safe Connections Act's requirement that covered providers inform survivors who separate a line from a shared mobile contract but are not the primary account holder of the date on which the covered provider intends to give any formal notification to the primary account holder, and also tentatively conclude that covered providers inform survivors when the covered provider will inform the abuser of a line separation involving the abuser's line. We seek comment on when covered providers must inform the survivor of the date the covered provider will notify the primary account holder and abuser (when the abuser's line is being separated). How soon before the primary account holder and abuser receive notification must the survivor be informed? Is there any language or terms providers should avoid using when notifying survivors? 5. Prohibited Practices in Connection With Line Separation Requests 64. Except as specifically provided, the Safe Connections Act prohibits covered providers from making line separations contingent on: (1) payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge; (2) maintaining contractual or billing responsibility of a separated line with the provider; (3) approval of separation by the primary account holder, if the primary account holder is not the survivor; (4) a prohibition or limitation, including payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge, on number portability, provided such portability is technically feasible, or a request to change phone numbers; (5) a prohibition or limitation on the separation of lines as a result of arrears accrued by the account; (6) an increase in the rate charged for the mobile service plan of the primary account holder with respect to service on any remaining line or lines; or (7) any other requirement or limitation not specifically permitted by the Safe Connections Act. We propose to codify these prohibitions and limitations in our rules, and seek comment on our proposal, as well as implementation of these prohibitions, as described below. 65. Fees, Penalties, and Other Charges. We believe that the Safe Connections Act's prohibition on making line separations contingent on payment of a fee, penalty, or other charge is unambiguous. We also believe this clause would prohibit covered providers from enforcing any contractual early termination fees that may be triggered by a line separation request, if the line separation request was made pursuant to section 345, regardless of whether a survivor continues to receive service from the provider as part of a new arrangement upon a line separation or completely ceases to receive service from the provider. We seek comment on our proposed interpretation and any burdens it may impose on covered providers. 66. Number Portability. We believe that the Safe Connections Act effectively prohibits covered providers from conditioning a line separation on the customer maintaining service with the provider, provided that such portability is technically feasible, and that this prohibition applies to any lines that remain on the original account and any lines that are separated. We propose to interpret this provision to mean that both the party that will remain associated with the existing account and the party that will be associated with the separated lines must be permitted to port their numbers at the time of the line separation or after, without fees or penalties, provided such portability is technically feasible. We seek comment on this view. Below, we discuss further the contours of technical feasibility of number porting within the confines of the Safe Connections Act. 67. Changing Phone Numbers. We seek comment on how best to interpret the Safe Connections Act's provision that prevents a covered provider from prohibiting or limiting a survivor's ability to request a phone number change as part of a line separation request. We note that as a general matter, survivors who are willing to change their phone numbers can start a new account and obtain a new number without having to go through the line separation process. Under what circumstances might a survivor want to both secure a line separation and change phone numbers, and are there any particular implications of those circumstances that we should address? For example, a survivor who is the primary account owner requesting separation of an abuser's line from the account might want to keep the account to maintain any promotional deals, complete device pay-off, or avoid early termination fees, but change a telephone number for safety reasons. We believe that this provision of the Safe Connections Act would bar covered providers from prohibiting such telephone number change requests or attaching a fee or penalty for doing so. We seek comment on this analysis, and any other circumstances which we should address. 68. Rate Increases. The Safe Connections Act prohibits covered providers from making a line separation request contingent on an increase in the rate charged for the mobile service plan of the primary account holder with respect to service on any remaining lines, but also provides that the prohibitions should not be construed “to require a covered provider to provide a rate plan for the primary account holder that is not otherwise commercially available.” To reconcile these two provisions, we make several tentative conclusions and seek comment on them. First, we believe the provision prohibiting covered providers from making a line separation contingent on a rate increase means that a covered provider cannot deny a survivor's line separation request if the primary account holder for the remaining lines does not agree to a rate increase. Second, we believe that provision also means that a covered provider cannot force the remaining primary account holder to switch to a service plan that has a higher rate, although the person may elect to switch to a rate plan that has a higher or lower rate from among those that are commercially available. Third, because the Safe Connections Act does not require covered providers to offer rate plans that are not otherwise commercially available, we believe covered providers are not required to offer survivors or remaining parties a specialized rate plan that is not commercially available if the party does not choose to continue the existing rate plan. Are there other ways to reconcile and interpret these two provisions? We do not read the Safe Connections Act to restrict covered providers from offering alternative rate plans to the party who remains associated with the original account. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to provide rate plan options during the line separation process to the customer who remains associated with the existing account. 69. Contractual and Billing Responsibilities. We seek comment on the Safe Connections Act's prohibition on making a line separation contingent on “maintaining contractual or billing responsibility of a separated line with the [covered] provider.” Specifically, we believe this prohibition means that the party with the separated line must have the option to select any commercially available prepaid or non-contractual service plans offered by the covered provider, whether that party is a survivor or abuser. Likewise, we believe this prohibition would also prohibit a covered provider from requiring a survivor who separates a line from maintaining the same contract, including any specified contract length or terms, as the account from which those lines were separated ( i.e., continuing a contract for the remainder of the time on the original account for the new account or requiring the survivor to maintain all previously-subscribed services (voice, text, data) under the new account). We also believe this provision can be interpreted as prohibiting covered providers from requiring that separated lines remain with that covered provider's service. This is consistent with our belief that the Safe Connections Act does not allow covered providers to charge early termination fees to survivors. We seek comment on these views. 70. Other Prohibited Restrictions and Limitations. Beyond the issues discussed above, do the prohibited restrictions and limitations in the Safe Connections Act contain any other ambiguities or raise other implications for covered providers that we should address? Additionally, although the Safe Connections Act includes a catch-all provision that prohibits covered providers from making line separations contingent on any other requirement or limitation not specifically permitted by the Safe Connections Act, we seek comment on whether we should specify any other requirements or limitations as prohibited in our rules. For example, should we specify that a covered provider must effectuate a SIM change sought in connection with a valid line separation request even if the primary account holder has activated account takeover protections for the account, such as a block on all SIM changes? Does the catch-all provision give sufficient direction to covered providers on what else is prohibited? 71. Provider Terms and Conditions. Given the general prohibition on restrictions and limitations for line separation requests, we seek comment on whether covered providers can require customers involved in line separations to comply with the general terms and conditions associated with using a covered provider's services, so long as those terms and conditions do not contain the enumerated prohibitions above and do not otherwise hinder a survivor from obtaining a line separation. If so, under what legal authority? Are there particular restrictions in existing terms and conditions that could be used to prevent line separations that we should explicitly prohibit in our rules? Are there other ways that providers can use their terms and conditions to hinder line separations? We note that this approach would permit covered providers to suspend or terminate the services on the existing and new accounts for violations of the provider's terms and conditions at any time after the line separation is completed. 72. Credit Checks. We also seek comment on whether the Safe Connections Act prohibits covered providers from making a line separation contingent on the results of a credit check or other proof of a party's ability to pay. We recognize that providers may currently require individuals to complete credit checks or demonstrate ability to pay to ensure that customers can meet their payment obligations for services and devices. However, we acknowledged in the Notice of Inquiry that some survivors may not be able to demonstrate their financial stability as a result of their abusive situation and therefore may be foreclosed from obtaining services—and the record supported this finding. 73. Although the designated program may allow some survivors experiencing financial hardship to obtain services without payment issues, we are concerned about situations where a survivor does not qualify for the designated program and also fails to meet the credit standards deemed acceptable by providers. To account for these circumstances, we tentatively conclude that we should specify in our rules that covered providers cannot make line separations contingent on the results of a credit check or other proof of a party's ability to pay. Consistent with the approach we took in the ACP Order, we would still permit covered providers to perform credit checks that are part of their routine sign-up process for all customers so long as they do not take the results of the credit check into account when determining whether they can effectuate a line separation. We also tentatively conclude that providers should be prohibited from relying on credit check results to determine the service plans from which a survivor is eligible to select and whether a survivor can take on the financial responsibilities for devices associated with lines used by the survivor or individuals in the care of the survivor. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on whether covered providers can use credit check results to determine which devices may be offered to a survivor for new purchases. We note that if we allow covered providers to require parties to comply with standard terms and conditions for services and devices, they would be able to enforce suspensions, terminations, or other remedies against customers for violating provisions described in those terms in conditions, such as failure to meet payment obligations. 74. If commenters believe that we should instead specify that covered providers should be permitted to rely on credit checks or other proof of payment capabilities in any of the circumstances described above, we ask commenters to describe how the Safe Connections Act provides us with the legal authority to do so, given its prohibition on making line separations contingent on “any other limitation or requirement listed under subsection (c)” of the Safe Connections Act. Additionally, if the Safe Connections Act permits covered providers to make line separations contingent on the result of a credit check or other proof of payment capabilities, should we require them to inform customers who fail to meet the provider's standards of other options, such as assistance through the designated program (if available), prepaid plans the provider might offer, and the ability to switch to another provider that may be able to accommodate the survivor? Are these alternatives adequate to provide survivors with communications services they need? 6. Financial Responsibilities and Account Billing Following Line Separations 75. The Safe Connections Act sets out requirements for financial responsibilities and account billing following line separations. Specifically, unless otherwise ordered by a court, when a survivor separates lines from a shared mobile service contract, the survivor must assume any financial responsibilities, including monthly service costs, for the transferred numbers beginning on the date when the lines are transferred. Survivors are not obligated to assume financial responsibility for mobile devices associated with those separated lines, unless the survivor purchased the mobile devices, affirmatively elects to maintain possession of the mobile devices, or is otherwise ordered to by a court. When an abuser's line is separated from an existing account, the survivor has no further financial responsibilities for the services and mobile device associated with the telephone number of that separated line. The statute also gives the Commission authority to establish additional rules concerning financial responsibilities and account billing following line separations. We propose to codify the statutory requirements and seek comment on any administrative challenges or other issues regarding billing and financial responsibilities that may arise from line separations that we should address. 76. We are particularly interested in learning how providers handle account billing issues following line separations they may perform now and whether the line separation requirements in the Safe Connections Act present new administrative challenges. We note that the Safe Connections Act requires covered providers to effectuate a line separation no later than two business days after receiving the request, meaning that account changes may need to occur in the middle of a billing cycle. If the Safe Connections Act requirements are different from providers' existing practices, how difficult would it be for providers to change their practices to meet the requirements? Are there particular challenges for smaller providers or those providers that may not conduct their own billing? 77. We recognize that there may be unique challenges with reassigning or separating contracts for device purchases. We believe the Safe Connections Act makes clear that, as a general matter, the individuals who purchased a device will maintain payment obligations for that device following a line separation. As the Safe Connections Act specifies, however, the survivor will take on the payment obligations for any devices the survivor elects to keep following separation of the survivor's line and the lines of those in the care of the survivor. We also believe it is clear that when an abuser's line is separated, the survivor is no longer responsible for the payment obligation for the device associated with that line. We tentatively conclude that if the abuser's line is separated and the abuser was the purchaser of any devices associated with lines that will remain on the account, the survivor can elect to keep those devices and take on the payment obligations for them. We seek comment on these proposed interpretations and the administrative challenges of implementing them. Do providers have the ability to reassign device payment contracts from one customer to another? We know anecdotally that some providers offer multi-device payment contracts, and these contracts often involve device discounts or associated service plan discounts. Some of the above separation scenarios may require splitting the payment obligations for devices that are on the same contract. Do providers have the ability to do this, especially in cases where the plan is no longer commercially available? How would they make adjustments to device or service plan discounts? Aside from reassigning or splitting contracts, does the Safe Connections Act allow covered providers to require the parties who are financially responsible for devices following separations to pay the full remaining balance of any devices or sign up for a new device payment plan at the time of the separation, or must they allow those parties to complete existing payment plans? We are particularly interested if this is permitted under the Safe Connections Act when it is the survivor taking on the payment obligation. Additionally, how would providers manage device payments when a line separation occurs midway through a billing cycle? Does the Safe Connections Act require them to prorate the payments? 78. Finally, we seek comment on how covered providers can manage previously-accrued arrears on an account following a line separation. We tentatively conclude that the arrears should stay with the primary account holder. For example, if the abuser's line is separated and the abuser was the primary account holder, the arrears would be reassigned to the abuser's new account. Similarly, if the survivor was the primary account holder and separates the abuser's line, the arrears would stay with the survivor's account. Conversely, if the survivor's line is separated and the abuser was the primary account holder, the arrears would stay with the abuser's account. Is this tentative conclusion administrable by covered providers? 7. Provider Obligations Related to Processing Line Separation Requests 79. In this section we seek comment on several topics concerning covered providers' obligations related to processing line separation requests. 80. Number Porting. Because the Safe Connections Act preserves survivors' ability to port their numbers in connection with line separation requests, we seek comment on the technical feasibility of such number ports. Generally, number portability allows consumers to keep their telephone numbers when they change carriers and remain in the same location. Under the Commission's current rules, wireless carriers must port numbers to other wireless carriers upon request without regard to proximity of the requesting carrier's switch to the porting-out carrier's switch, and must port numbers to wireline carriers within the number's originating rate center. We believe these same number porting obligations apply for lines that have been separated pursuant to section 345; we do not believe that there is anything unique about number ports associated with line separations that would make such ports more or less technically feasible than under other circumstances. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that any ports that covered providers are currently required to, and technically capable of, completing would be technically feasible under the Safe Connections Act. We also tentatively conclude that should the requirements or capabilities for porting change in the future, any newly-feasible ports also will be considered technically feasible when sought in connection with a line separation. We seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusions. 81. We separately seek comment on the operational feasibility of separating lines and porting numbers at the same time. Have providers developed procedures to handle this already? If not, how burdensome would it be to do so? Because customers typically initiate port requests through a new provider, would it be feasible for survivors to seek a line separation and number port at the same time? Currently, customers seeking to port a telephone number to a new wireless provider must provide the new provider with the telephone number, account number, ZIP code, and any passcode on the account. Many wireless providers also require customers to authenticate the port request through a port-out PIN. Is it feasible for a survivor to have this information to provide to a new carrier to request a port before a line separation request has been effectuated and a new account established for the survivor? If a survivor initiates a port request with a new provider, would that request remain pending and then be processed as soon as the line separation with the old provider is effectuated? Do we need to modify our number porting rules to permit these processes? For instance, because of the complexity of these port requests, would they fall outside the timelines for processing simple port requests established by the Commission and industry agreement? What additional administrative and survivor confidentiality challenges may arise for processing line separations and port requests if the survivor is also seeking to qualify for the designated program with the new provider? 82. We also seek comment on steps we can take to prevent port-out fraud. In the 2021 SIM Swap and Port-Out Fraud NPRM, we asked if we should require providers to authenticate customers through means other than the information used to validate simple port requests, such as through the use of a PIN established with their current provider, before effectuating a port-out request, and several commenters replied in the affirmative. Above, we ask if we should require covered providers to allow survivors to select whether they intend to port their numbers during the line separation process. If we do, should we also require covered providers to require survivors to establish a PIN or another authentication key used by the provider to process port-out requests if the survivor indicates the intent to port-out numbers? 83. Compliance with CPNI Protections and Other Law Enforcement Requirements. As discussed above, section 222 of the Communications Act obligates telecommunications carriers to protect the privacy and security of information about their customers to which they have access as a result of their unique position as network operators. Section 222(a) requires carriers to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of and relating to their customers. Subject to certain exceptions, section 222(c)(1) provides that a carrier may use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI that it has received by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service only: (1) as required by law; (2) with the customer's approval; or (3) in its provision of the telecommunications service from which such information is derived or its provision of services necessary to or used in the provision of such telecommunications service. The Commission's rules implementing section 222 are designed to ensure that telecommunications carriers establish effective safeguards to protect against unauthorized use or disclosure of CPNI. Among other things, the rules require carriers to appropriately authenticate customers seeking access to CPNI. Our CPNI rules define a “customer” as “a person or entity to which the telecommunications carrier is currently providing service.” Our rules also require carriers to take reasonable measures to both discover and protect against attempts to gain unauthorized access to CPNI and to notify customers immediately of certain account changes, including whenever a customer's password, response to a carrier-designed back-up means of authentication, online account, or address of record is created or changed. 84. In light of the protections afforded to CPNI by section 222 and our implementing rules, we seek comment on how we can design the line separation rules to preserve those protections. In particular, we seek to understand who is a “customer” under our rules with respect to plans with multiple lines or users and whether the answer to that question affects how CPNI on such accounts must be protected following a line separation. For instance, if the abuser is the primary account holder, and the abuser's line is separated from the existing account, should the covered provider prevent the new primary account holder from accessing any historical CPNI associated with the account? Should the primary account holder's historical CPNI move with the separated user to a new account? If a survivor who is not the primary account holder separates the survivor's line from a shared mobile service contract, should the historical CPNI from that line be moved over to the new account? Do covered providers have the technical capability to complete such moves? Are there other issues that may arise as a result of line separations concerning the protection of CPNI? For example, our rules require telecommunications carriers to notify customers “immediately” whenever a password, customer response to a back-up means of authentication for lost or forgotten passwords, online account, or address of record is created or changed. We tentatively conclude that this rule should not apply in cases where the changes are made as a result of a line separation request pursuant to section 345, as it would run counter to the intentions of the Safe Connections Act. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. 85. Aside from CPNI, the Safe Connections Act requires us to consider the effect of line separations and any rules we adopt on any other legal or law enforcement requirements. We seek comment on what other legal or law enforcement requirements may by impacted by line separations or the rules and proposals we discuss in this NPRM and how we can ensure our rules align with those requirements. 86. Other Issues Related to Processing Requests. We seek comment on whether covered providers may face any other issues when processing line separation requests. For instance, would covered providers face administrative challenges if multiple survivors on an account each seek line separations at the same time? Are there any changes to processes that providers have to make with respect to the North America Numbering Plan and Reassigned Numbers Databases to comply with the Safe Connections Act's requirements? Would there be any issues if survivors choose to cancel their requests or submitted multiple requests in the same year? To what extent are any issues raised unique to the Safe Connections Act's requirements? 87. Provider Policies and Practices. Given the importance of line separation to survivors seeking to distance themselves from their abusers, we seek comment on the extent to which we should require covered providers to establish policies and practices to ensure that they process line separation requests effectively. At a minimum, we tentatively conclude that all employees who may interact with a survivor regarding a line separation must be trained on how to assist them or on how to direct them to employees who have received such training. What would be the burden on covered providers, particularly small providers, for any potential requirements we may adopt? 88. We also seek comment on what measures covered providers can take to detect and prevent fraud and abuse. Are there any particular requirements we should establish in the rules we adopt? Should we establish rules requiring covered providers to investigate and remediate fraud and abuse in a timely manner? Should we require providers to investigate cases where the primary account holder asserts that a line separation was fraudulent? Should providers create a process for primary account holders to report allegedly fraudulent line separations, and what course of action should providers take in response? What evidence is sufficient to show that a line separation was fraudulent, given the risk that an abuser may attempt to reverse a legitimate line separation by claiming it was fraudulent? How difficult will it be for covered providers to reverse line separations they discover were fraudulent? 89. Other Measures To Prevent Abusers from Controlling Survivors. We are concerned that if a survivor's abuser becomes aware that the survivor is seeking a line separation, the abuser may seek to prevent the line separation or preemptively cancel the line of service. We seek comment on steps covered providers can take to hinder those efforts. For example, should we require covered providers to lock an account to prevent all SIM changes, number ports, and line cancelations as soon as possible and no more than 12 hours after receiving a line separation request from a survivor, to prevent the abuser or other users from removing the survivor's access to the line before the request is processed? We also seek comment on whether we should require covered providers to keep records of SIM changes, number ports, and line cancelations and reverse or remediate any of those that were processed shortly before receiving a valid line separation request for numbers in the request, because the SIM change, number port, or cancelation could have been an attempt by an abuser to prevent a line separation. Would these requirements be technically and administratively feasible? If so, how much time prior to the line separation request should a SIM change, number port, or line cancelation be considered improper and subject to this remediation? Additionally, we seek comment on how covered providers should handle situations where an abuser contacts the covered provider to attempt to stop or reverse a line separation, such as by claiming the request is fraudulent. We tentatively conclude that covered providers should complete or maintain line separations and make a record of the complaint in the existing and new account in the event further evidence shows that the request was in fact fraudulent. What would be the burden on covered providers, particularly small providers, for implementing any of these requirements? Finally, we seek comment on what steps covered providers can take, if any, to remove or assist survivors with removing any spyware that an abuser may have installed on devices of the survivor or individuals in the survivor's care. 8. Implementation 90. Timeframe. We seek comment on the appropriate implementation timeframe for the requirements we propose in this NPRM to implement the new section 345. How long will covered providers need to implement the necessary technical and programmatic changes to comply with the requirements under section 345 and our proposed rules? What existing processes do covered providers have in place that would enable efficient implementation of our proposed rules? Are there challenges unique to small covered providers that may require a longer implementation period than larger covered providers? If so, how should we define “small” covered provider for these purposes? What would be an appropriate timeframe for small covered providers, balancing the costs and burdens with implementing our proposed rules against the critical public safety interests at stake for survivors? 91. Effective Date. The Safe Connections Act states that the line separation requirements in the statute “shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the Federal Communications Commission adopts the rules implementing” those requirements, and we propose to make final rules effective in accordance with that timeline. We note, however, that some of the rules to be adopted pursuant to this NPRM may require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to becoming effective under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). While we believe the PRA provisions for emergency processing may facilitate harmonization of these statutory requirements, we seek comment on the implications of the Safe Connections Act's effective date provision for PRA review. Are there any steps we should take to preemptively address potential inconsistencies between OMB approval of final rules and the statutory effective date set forth in the Safe Connections Act? 92. Liability Protection. Under the Safe Connections Act, covered providers and their officers, directors, employees, vendors and agents are exempt from liability “for any claims deriving from an action taken or omission made with respect to compliance” with the Safe Connections Act and “the rules adopted to implement” the Safe Connections Act. Congress made clear, however, that nothing in that provision “shall limit the authority of the Commission to enforce [the Safe Connections Act] or any rules or regulations promulgated by the Commission pursuant to [the Safe Connections Act].” We seek comment on how, if at all, our rules should account for these provisions. 93. Enforcement. We seek comment on issues related to enforcement of the rules contemplated in this NPRM. Should the Commission adopt rules governing the enforcement of the specific requirements, or should the Commission employ the general enforcement mechanisms to impose monetary penalties on noncompliant service providers set forth in section 503 of the Communications Act, as well as in the Lifeline and ACP rules? Is there alternative authority for enforcement, such as derived from the Safe Connections Act, that we should consider? Given the potentially serious safety issues that could result from a covered provider's noncompliance with rules implementing the line separation obligations, we seek comment on appropriate, specific penalties that could be adopted to incentivize compliance with program requirements. B. Ensuring the Privacy of Calls and Texts Messages to Domestic Abuse Hotlines 94. The Safe Connections Act directs us to consider whether and how to “establish, and update on a monthly basis, a central database of covered hotlines to be used by a covered provi [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2023-04489. Public record. Not legal advice.