Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-38 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence ) ) ) ) WC Docket No. 22-238 FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: April 3, 2024 Released: April 8, 2024 Comment Date: 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register Reply Comment Date: 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel issuing a statement. I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the Commission seeks comment on additional action we can take to help survivors of domestic violence access safe and affordable connectivity, particularly in the context of connected car services. Modern vehicles are frequently equipped with a suite of connectivity tools and features, such as hands-free communication, real-time location, and other connectivity services. While these services provide benefits to drivers and passengers when used as intended, news reports suggest that these services have also been used to stalk, harass, and revictimize survivors of domestic violence. 2. We seek comment on solutions to help ensure that domestic violence survivors need not choose between access to personal transportation or exposing themselves to threatening, stalking, or other harmful behavior by those who can access the car’s data and connectivity. We seek comment on the types, as well as the frequency of use, of connected car services in the marketplace today. In addition, we ask whether changes to the Commission’s rules implementing the Safe Connections Act (SCA) are needed to address the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors. Safe Connections Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-223, 116 Stat. 2280 (Safe Connections Act or SCA); see also 47 U.S.C. § 345. In November 2023, the Commission adopted a Report and Order implementing the Safe Connections Act. Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence et al., WC Docket No. 22-238, Report and Order, FCC 23-96 (Nov. 16, 2023) (SCA Report and Order). We also ask more broadly what steps connected car service providers can proactively take to protect survivors from being stalked, harassed, intimidated, or otherwise revictimized through the misuse of connected car services. II. BACKGROUND 3. Domestic violence and abusive relationships are a significant safety and public health issue that result in individual harm and societal costs that extend beyond the survivor. SCA Report and Order at para. 2; Safe Connections Act § 3(1) (noting that “[d]omestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking, and related crimes are life-threatening issues and have lasting and harmful effects on individuals, families, and entire communities”). Domestic violence affects more than 12 million people every year, and an average of 24 people per minute are subject to physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner. National Domestic Violence Hotline, Domestic Violence Statistics, https://www.thehotline.org/stakeholders/domestic-violence-statistics (last visited Feb. 5, 2024) (noting “[i]ntimate partner violence alone affects more than 12 million people every year.”). Almost half of all women and men in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime (48.4% and 48.8%, respectively). Id. The effects of domestic violence disproportionately impact women. Id. (noting “[j]ust under 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men in the US have been injured as a result of intimate partner violence that included rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.”). In addition, domestic violence disproportionately impacts people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other individuals who identify with historically marginalized demographics. See, e.g., Abriana Herron, “New plan to address disproportionate impact of domestic violence on Black women,” wfyi, Indianapolis, (Jan. 10, 2024), https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/new-plan-to-address-disproportionate-impact-of-domestic-violence-on-black-women#:~:text=A%20key%20component%20of%20the,resources%20and%20restorative%20justice%20programming (last visited Feb. 27, 2024); Jamila K. Stockman, et al., Intimate Partner Violence and Its Health Impact on Disproportionately Affected Populations, Including Minorities and Impoverished Groups, Journal of Women’s Health, Jan. 1, 2015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4302952/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2024); National Domestic Violence Hotline, Domestic Violence and its Impact on Transgender and Nonbinary Survivors, https://www.thehotline.org/resources/domestic-abuse-transgender-non-binary-survivors/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2024). Estimates of economic costs due to domestic violence are vast and encompass disruptions to education and work, among other aspects. See Maggie Germano, Domestic Violence Has A Financial Impact Too, FORBES (Oct. 17, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiegermano/2019/10/17/domestic-violence-has-a-financial-impact-too/?sh=7ef6ccf49d04 (last visited Jan. 19, 2024); see also Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, Oct. 11, 2022 https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html (last visited Feb. 5, 2024). 4. Safe Connections Act. In recognition of the harmful and lasting impact that domestic violence and related crimes have on survivors, Congress passed the SCA in November of 2022. See generally Safe Connections Act. In particular, Congress recognized the reality that survivors seeking to escape their abusers are often tethered to their abusers by technology—such as shared mobile service—and that these lingering connections present unique challenges for survivors seeking to maintain essential connectivity while distancing themselves from their abusers. Safe Connections Act § 3. In the SCA, Congress found that “perpetrators of violence and abuse . . . increasingly use technological and communications tools to exercise control over, monitor, and abuse their victims,” and that “[c]ommunications law can play a public interest role in the promotion of safety, life, and property” with respect to these types of violence and abuse. Safe Connections Act § 3(3)-(4). The SCA further found that “[s]afeguards within communications services can serve a role in preventing abuse and narrowing the digital divide experienced by survivors of abuse.” Safe Connections Act § 3(5). Congress, through the SCA, sought to ensure that survivors can separate from abusers without losing independent access to their mobile service plans. See Safe Connections Act § 3(4); see also 47 U.S.C. § 345(b)-(c). To further that objective, Congress directed the Commission to adopt rules to implement the protections established in the SCA for survivors of domestic violence. See Safe Connections Act § 5; see also 47 U.S.C. § 345 note (Rulemaking on Protections for Survivors of Domestic Violence). For example, the SCA directs the Commission to issue rules implementing a line separation requirement, facilitate emergency communications support for survivors, and consider whether and how to set up a hotline central database and omit hotline calls from consumer-facing call logs. See Safe Connections Act § 3(4); 47 U.S.C. § 345(b)-(c). 5. SCA Report and Order. In November 2023, the Commission adopted the SCA Report and Order implementing the Commission’s obligations under the SCA to help survivors of domestic violence and related crimes to separate service lines from accounts shared with their abusers, protect the privacy of calls made by survivors to domestic-violence hotlines, and support survivors suffering from financial hardship. See generally SCA Report and Order. The Commission defined “survivor” as an individual who is not less than 18 years old and either (1) against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed; or (2) who cares for another individual against whom a covered act has been committed or allegedly committed (provided that the individual providing care did not commit or allegedly commit the covered act). SCA Report and Order at para. 11; 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(6); 47 CFR § 64.6400(m). “Covered act” is defined under the Commission’s rules to mean “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.” SCA Report and Order at para. 8; 47 CFR § 64.6400(e). The Commission defined key terms in the SCA, such as what constitutes a “covered provider” subject to the Commission’s new rules. The SCA defines “covered provider” to mean “a provider of a private mobile service or commercial mobile service, as those terms are defined in section 332(d)” of the Communications Act, and the Commission adopted this definition in its implementing regulations. 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(3); SCA Report and Order at para. 16 and at Appendix A, § 64.6400(g). As noted in the SCA Report and Order, multi-line shared mobile service contracts The SCA states that a “shared mobile service contract” “(A) means a mobile service contract for an account that includes not less than 2 consumers; and (B) does not include enterprise services offered by a covered provider.” 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(5). The Commission defined this term in its implementing regulations 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,” with a “line of service” meaning “one that is associated with a telephone number, and includes all of the services associated with that line under the shared mobile service contract, regardless of classification, including voice, text, and data services. SCA Report and Order at paras. 19-24 and Appendix A, § 64.6400(k). present challenges for survivors of domestic violence who seek to maintain essential connectivity while also distancing themselves from their abuser, because the abuser may be an account holder and thus able to monitor the survivor’s calls, text messages, and device location. SCA Report and Order at para. 3. In adopting rules implementing the SCA, the Commission recognized that it can be difficult for the survivor to separate their mobile service line from their abuser when the plan is shared with and controlled by the abuser. SCA Report and Order at para. 3. 6. Concerns of Misuse of Connected Car Applications by Abusers. Connected cars bring a myriad of benefits that can improve conditions for drivers, pedestrians, and motorists in general. See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Connected Cars Workshop, Jan. 2018, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/connected-cars-workshop-federal-trade-commission-staff-perspective/staff_perspective_connected_cars_0.pdf (last visited Jan. 30, 2024). These benefits include helping to locate a vehicle in a parking lot and connecting promptly with first responders in an emergency without a phone. These features typically require the car to have wireless connectivity and to create and share location data. However, when these data and connectivity are in the wrong hands, they may be used to harm a survivor in—or attempting to leave—an abusive relationship. Kashmir Hill, “Your Car is Tracking You. Abusive Partners May Be, Too. Apps that remotely track and control cars are being weaponized by abusive partners. Car manufacturers have been slow to respond, according to victims and experts.” The New York Times, Dec. 31, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/31/technology/car-trackers-gps-abuse.html. Indeed, recent reports suggest that connected cars can be “weaponized” against survivors, especially when survivors co-own or share a car with an abuser. Id. This article details the experiences of survivors of abusive relationships where the abusers used their shared connected car to track and harass the survivor. Id. For instance, connected cars co-owned or leased by both the abuser and survivor may allow the abuser to track the survivor using the car’s location-based services. Id. One news report suggests that survivors may have only limited ability to remove an abuser from their vehicle’s data services and that connected car manufacturers may hesitate to act or abstain from acting altogether when the abuser has an ownership interest in the connected car with the survivor. Id. 7. FCC Letters and Responses. In response to this public policy concern and Congress’ directive in the SCA, in January 2024, Chairwoman Rosenworcel sent a series of letters to wireless service providers Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to John Stankey, CEO, AT&T Services, Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Mike Sievert, President and CEO, T-Mobile (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Hans Vestburg, Chairman and CEO, Verizon (Jan. 11, 2024) (collectively, Wireless Provider Letters). and to auto manufacturers Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to James D. Farley, Jr., President and CEO, Ford Motor Company (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Mary Barra, Chair and CEO, General Motors Company (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Noriya Kaihara, President and CEO, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to José Muñoz, President and CEO, Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Dimitris Psillakis, President and CEO, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Jérémie Papin, Chairperson, Nissan North America, Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Mark Stewart, COO, Stellantis North America, LLC (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Elon Musk, CEO, Tesla, Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024); Letter from Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, to Tetsuo “Ted” Ogawa, President and CEO, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Jan. 11, 2024) (collectively, Auto Manufacturer Letters). to seek information and ask for their help in protecting domestic violence survivors. Chairwoman on Safe Connected Cars for Domestic Violence Survivors, News Release, January 11, 2024, https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairwoman-safe-connected-cars-domestic-violence-survivors. The letters to the wireless providers asked about existing connected car services, treatment of geolocation data from these services, current compliance with the SCA, and whether (and if so, how) the companies provide connected car services to consumers who are not subscribers to the company’s wireless services. The letters to the auto manufacturers asked the companies for details about the connected car services they offer, any existing plans to support survivors’ efforts to disconnect from abusers, and how the manufacturers handle consumers’ geolocation data. 8. In their responses, as discussed further below, the wireless service providers noted their shared concerns about safeguarding survivors of domestic violence and affirmed that they are taking steps to implement the SCA. Wireless Provider Letters. The auto manufacturers provided an overview of the functions and privacy features of their connected car services. Auto Manufacturer Letters. III. DISCUSSION 9. We seek comment generally on the ways that connected car services are used and steps the Commission can take to help protect survivors of domestic violence from misuse of such services. First, based on the responses to the information requests sent by the Chairwoman, we describe and seek comment on our understanding of wireless service providers’ and auto manufacturers’ connected car service offerings. We also seek additional information on any other connected car services that are available. Next, we seek comment on whether changes to the Commission’s rules implementing the SCA are necessary to address the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors. Finally, we seek comment on other actions we can take to help protect survivors using connected car services. In that regard, we seek comment on other potential sources of authority for Commission action and on how to encourage connected car service providers to take proactive steps to protect survivors against misuse of these services. 10. The Connected Car Services Available Today. The responses to Chairwoman Rosenworcel’s information requests show that wireless service providers and auto manufacturers currently provide a range of connected car services in the marketplace. We seek additional information about how these services are offered to consumers. 11. One method for offering connected car services is through a wireless service provider. The wireless service providers’ responses to the Chairwoman’s information requests suggest that their offerings generally consist either of (1) services offered directly to consumers or (2) wholesale connectivity services offered to auto manufacturers or to the manufacturer’s contracted third-party telematics service provider. See, e.g., Letter from Rhonda J. Johnson, Exec. Vice Pres. Fed. Regulatory Relations, AT&T to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 1 (AT&T Response Letter); Letter from William H. Johnson, Senior Vice Pres. Verizon to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2-4 (Verizon Response Letter); Letter from Edward (“Smitty”) Smith, Senior Vice Pres. Public Policy and Governmental Affairs, T-Mobile to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2-3 (T-Mobile Response Letter). For services offered directly to consumers, wireless service providers may enter into an agreement with a subscriber to add a line with an associated phone number to their wireless service contract for the connected car service. See, e.g., T-Mobile Response Letter at 3, 5; Verizon Response Letter at 5-6 (noting that, “with limited exceptions, Verizon assigns non-geographic 10-digit telephone numbers in its connected car offerings, both for its own services and those offered directly to consumers by automobile manufacturers”). Subscribers typically access these services using an app and, in some cases, a separate device that plugs into their vehicle’s control panel. See, e.g., Verizon Response Letter at 2; T-Mobile Response Letter at 3. The direct-to-subscriber services offer a range of features such as roadside assistance, navigation, and notification of required vehicle maintenance. See, e.g., Verizon Response Letter at 2; T-Mobile Response Letter at 2. Wireless service provider responses to the information requests suggest that some of these services also include the ability to track the vehicle’s location remotely. See, e.g., Verizon Response Letter at 2; T-Mobile Response Letter at 4. Some wireless service providers also offer in-vehicle Wi-Fi services to consumers. See, e.g., AT&T Response Letter at 1-2; Verizon Response Letter at 2. When wireless service providers offer wholesale connectivity services, the providers may not have a direct contractual relationship with individual vehicle owners or lessees. Rather, they may contract directly with auto manufacturers via wholesale agreements or with other third parties to provide connectivity for a fleet of vehicles. See, e.g., AT&T Response Letter at 2; Verizon Response Letter at 4. We seek comment on our understanding of the connected car services offered by wireless service providers, and we seek additional information on any other features and capabilities not covered in this paragraph. 12. With respect to auto manufacturers’ connected car services, the responses suggest that, when purchasing service from an auto manufacturer, the owner or lessee of a car typically enters into a service agreement with the auto manufacturer for connected car services. See, e.g., Letter from David Strickland, Vice Pres. Global Reg. Affairs and Transportation Technology Policy, General Motors to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 3 (General Motors Response Letter); Letter from Jennifer Thomas, Vice President, Corp. Affairs, Honda to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2 (Honda Response Letter); Letter from Robert R. Hood, Vice Pres. of Govt. Affairs, Hyundai Motors (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 1 (Hyundai Response Letter). A car owner typically accesses connected services on their mobile device through a manufacturer-provided app. See, e.g., General Motors Response Letter at 3-4; Honda Response Letter at 2; Hyundai Response Letter at 1, Letter from Shane Karr, Sen. Vice Pres. Public Affairs North America, Stellantis to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2 (Stellantis Response Letter). Many auto manufacturers obtain the network connectivity to power these services by entering into contracts to access the wireless networks of wireless service providers or other third parties. See, e.g., Stellantis Response Letter at 1; Hyundai Response Letter at 2; Letter from Angela E. Giancarlo, on behalf of Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 5-6 (Toyota Response Letter). The connected car services provided by auto manufacturers include a range of features such as the ability to start the vehicle or control the vehicle’s climate control system remotely. See, e.g., Hyundai Response Letter at 1; Letter from Jake Jones, Vice Pres. of External Affairs, Mercedes Benz North America to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) at 1 (Mercedes Response Letter); Stellantis Response Letter at 2; Toyota Response Letter at 4. Some services also include the ability to track the vehicle’s location remotely. See, e.g., Mercedes Response Letter at 1; Letter from Rohan Patel, Vice Pres. Public Policy & Business Development, Tesla to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Jan. 26, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2 (Tesla Response Letter); Toyota Response Letter at 3. We seek comment on our understanding of the connected car services offered by auto manufacturers, and we seek additional information on any other features and capabilities not covered in this paragraph. 13. It appears that consumers—including domestic violence survivors—have varying levels of control of the data that connected car services generate, including remote vehicle location data. Responses to the information requests suggest that while some of the wireless service providers and auto manufacturers enable a survivor to turn off remote location tracking if the survivor becomes aware of being tracked by an abuser, not all companies currently provide that ability. Compare GM Response Letter at 2 (stating that “if a driver wishes to prevent access to a vehicle’s location outside the vehicle, the driver can disable the location of the vehicle using the settings function of the vehicle’s infotainment system . . .”); and Letter from Christopher A. Smith, Chief Governmental Affairs Office, Ford Motor Co. to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Feb. 2, 2024) (on file in WC Docket No. 22-238) at 2 (Ford Response Letter) (noting that anyone concerned about tracking has the option to use touch screen controls in the vehicle to turn off locating data sharing, turn off connectivity entirely, or disassociate the vehicle from the app), with Mercedes Response Letter at 1-2 (noting that customers can delete profiles from the Mercedes me connect app but that “when the party requesting the deletion of a profile or termination of access is not the vehicle owner or lessee, our ability to confirm the veracity of that request is limited. A court order would thus be required where a non-owner or leasing party is seeking deactivation of a service”). For some connected car services, it appears that only a vehicle owner or lessee may disable tracking features on the connected car app absent a court order or other legal process. See, e.g., Mercedes Response Letter at 1-2; Stellantis Response Letter at 2. Some of the responses to the information requests indicate that the provider’s connected car service gives notice to a driver that the car’s location is being tracked. See, e.g., Tesla Response Letter at 2 (noting that its connected car service “transparently communicates when the vehicle’s live location is being requested by an app” and that this is accomplished by “serving the driver with an arrow icon in the status bar of the vehicle’s center touchscreen”); Honda Response Letter at 4 (noting that “if a request for a vehicle’s location is made, an in-vehicle notification is displayed for the vehicle operator to indicate that the vehicle’s location was (or is being) shared”). Other responses do not indicate whether the service offers this function. See, e.g., Hyundai Response Letter; Stellantis Response Letter. The responses to the information requests further indicate that information collected through connected car services may be shared with third parties in accordance with connected car service agreements. See, e.g., Hyundai Response Letter at 2-3;T-Mobile Response Letter at 6. We seek further information on whether and how users, including both owners or lessees and nonowners or lessees, control access to their data for connected car services that are available today and on what information users receive about the tracking features of these services. To what extent do auto manufacturers and wireless service providers enable—or plan to enable—access controls for data associated with connected car services for owners and lessees and other vehicle users? 14. Application of the SCA and the FCC’s Implementing Rules to Connected Car Services. We seek comment on what, if any, changes to our rules implementing the SCA could help to address the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors. A “shared mobile service contract” is defined under the SCA rules to mean “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. SCA Report and Order at para. 19; 47 CFR § 64.6400(k). “Lines of service,” under the SCA rules, are those “associated with a telephone number” and include “all of the mobile services associated with that line under the shared mobile service contract, regardless of classification, including voice, text, and data services.” SCA Report and Order at para. 20; 47 CFR § 64.6400(k). The SCA Report and Order makes clear that a “line” can apply to devices, “such as tablets with no mobile capability, which only nominally have a line associated with a customer account,” noting, for example, that “a survivor may want to separate a line for a device in order to protect his or her location information from an abuser with access to the shared mobile account information.” SCA Report and Order at para. 21. 15. Line separation requirements apply, under the SCA rules, to “covered providers.” 47 CFR § 64.6401. “Covered providers” are defined as providers of “a private mobile service or commercial mobile service, as those terms are defined in 47 U.S.C. 332(d).” 47 CFR § 64.6400(g). 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 “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.” 47 U.S.C. §332(d)(1),(3). The Commission’s regulations define “commercial mobile radio service” as “a mobile service that is: (a) (1) provided for profit, i.e., with the intent of receiving compensation or monetary gain; (2) An interconnected service; and (3) Available to the public, or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the public; or (b) The functional equivalent of such a mobile service described in paragraph (a) of this definition. (c) A variety of factors may be evaluated to make a determination whether the mobile service in question is the functional equivalent of a commercial mobile radio service, including: Consumer demand for the service to determine whether the service is closely substitutable for a commercial mobile radio service; whether changes in price for the service under examination, or for the comparable commercial mobile radio service, would prompt customers to change from one service to the other; and market research information identifying the targeted market for the service under review. (d) Unlicensed radio frequency devices under part 15 of this chapter are excluded from this definition of Commercial mobile radio service.” 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. “Private mobile radio service” is a “mobile service that meets neither the paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) definitions of commercial mobile radio service” and a “mobile service that does not meet the paragraph (a) definition of commercial mobile radio service . . . is presumed to be a private mobile radio service.” Id. “Covered provider” includes providers of mobile broadband-only or mobile text service that do not also offer mobile voice service, if such provider assigns a telephone number to a device. SCA Report and Order at para. 18. “Covered provider” also includes facilities-based mobile network operators and resellers/mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). SCA Report and Order at para. 17. 16. Where the defined elements in the Commission’s SCA rules are present, the obligations associated with line separations apply. The FCC’s rules implementing the SCA thus could apply to connected car services that involve a “shared mobile service contract” offered by a “covered provider” as defined under the rules and would require a provider to respond to a valid request for a line separation. The SCA Report and Order codified the SCA’s requirement that, for a shared mobile service contract under which a survivor and abuser each use a line, a covered provider must, not later than two business days after receiving a completed line separation request from a survivor, (1) separate the line(s) of the survivor, and the line(s) of any individual in the care of the survivor, from the shared mobile service contract, or (2) separate the line(s) of the abuser from the shared mobile service contract. SCA Report and Order at para. 50; 47 CFR §§64.6402(a); 47 U.S.C. §345(b)(1). We seek comment on this position and the extent to which the FCC’s existing SCA rules do not fully address concerns regarding the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors and whether changes to these rules would enable the Commission to better address these concerns. 17. As stated above, the definition of “covered provider” under the SCA rules includes providers both of commercial mobile service and private mobile service and also includes facilities-based mobile network operators and resellers/MVNOs. In the context of connected cars, wireless providers offer services directly to consumers and may enter into an agreement with a subscriber to add a line to their mobile service contract for the connected car service. Wireless providers also provide wholesale service to auto manufacturers, which in turn provide connectivity for consumers as a value-added service. Auto manufacturers enter into service agreements with owners and lessees of vehicles to provide them connected car services using, in many cases, the connectivity from the networks of wireless service providers. We view the broad scope of the “covered provider” definition as potentially including the connected car services that wireless service providers offer directly to consumers, and we highlight this view to assist efforts to implement the Commission’s recently adopted rules under the SCA. Does the definition also include the service that auto manufacturers purchase wholesale and in turn offer to consumers? Does the definition of “covered provider” in the SCA rules need to be modified to account for additional use cases in order to better protect survivors, and if so, what revisions do commenters recommend? Would doing so be consistent with the policy objectives and authority of the SCA? 18. To what extent are auto manufacturers reselling mobile connectivity when providing connected car services? In clarifying that the SCA rules extend to MVNOs, the Commission noted in the SCA Report and Order that, for some MVNOs, “the underlying facilities-based provider may have control over some parts of, or all of, the systems and infrastructure necessary to effectuate line separations.” SCA Report and Order at para. 17. The Commission clarified that, in those cases, “the MVNO should fulfill its obligations under the SCA and our rules through its contractual relationship with the underlying facilities-based provider, and may satisfy its obligations by utilizing the same procedures and processes the facilities-based provider makes available to its own customers.” Id. To the extent an MVNO controls any facilities or systems, such as customer care or billing, the Commission found that “the obligations imposed by the SCA fall entirely upon the MVNO and not the underlying facilities-based provider.” Id. We seek comment on how these findings may apply in the context of connected car services offered by auto manufacturers. Do auto manufacturers have control over any systems or infrastructure necessary to effectuate a line separation under the SCA rules? Are these systems entirely controlled by the wireless service providers who provide the connectivity for the services? Are they controlled or operated jointly? 19. Under the SCA, “shared mobile service contract” is defined to mean “a mobile service contract for an account that includes not less than 2 consumers.” 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(5). The rules implementing the SCA provide that a “shared mobile service contract” means “a mobile service contract for an account that includes not less than two lines of service” SCA Report and Order at para. 19; 47 CFR § 64.6400(k). The Commission interpreted “2 consumers” to mean “two lines of service” based on its 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.” SCA Report and Order at para. 19. and define “lines of service” to mean those lines associated with a telephone number. SCA Report and Order at para. 20; 47 CFR § 64.6400(k). Connected car services generally involve a “shared mobile service contract” when the service is offered by a wireless service provider as an add-on to an existing wireless service agreement. Do connected car services offered by auto manufacturers also involve multiple lines of service? Some of the responses to the information requests stated that auto manufacturers do not use shared mobile service contracts for connected car services. See Alliance for Automotive Innovation Response Letter at 1; Toyota Response Letter at 1. For example, if someone owns multiple cars from the same manufacturer and each of those cars has connected car service, would there be a “shared mobile service contract” for those services? Do connected car services use “lines of service” as contemplated under the SCA framework? The responses to the information requests suggest that some connected car services associate phone numbers with specific vehicles. See, e.g., Honda Response Letter at 3; Hyundai Response Letter at 2; Stellantis Response Letter at 1; Toyota Response Letter at 5. Is that association typical for the majority of connected car services? If there are some connected car services that do not involve “shared mobile service contracts” and “lines of service” as currently defined by the Commission, are there ways that the Commission can revise these definitions, consistent with our authority under the SCA, to expand their scope and apply to connected car services? Would doing so be consistent with the policy objectives of and authority granted by the SCA? For example, to the extent connected car services are not currently encompassed in the Commission’s definition of “shared mobile service contract” under our rules, does the language in the SCA definition that refers to “an account that includes not less than 2 consumers” 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(5) (emphasis added). suggest that we could extend the definition to a shared account (e.g., co-owners or co-lessees of a vehicle) for connected car services? 20. To the extent that connected car services are—or could be—covered by the SCA, how would line separation requirements apply? Are there operational or technical issues that would affect implementation, including any unique challenges for small entities? For example, how would vehicle ownership affect implementation? Are vehicles typically owned on a shared basis by both members of a couple? We expect that, if a vehicle is under the sole ownership of an abuser, but is used by a survivor, the SCA rules would require separation of the connected car service line that is associated with that vehicle through the abuser’s account. In these cases, what evidence and standards of proof would be needed from a survivor to separate the connected car service line? Currently, under the Commission’s SCA rules, survivors seeking a line separation are required to submit documentation that verifies that an individual who uses a line under the shared mobile service contract has committed or allegedly committed a covered act against the survivor or an individual in the survivor’s care. SCA Report and Order at para. 29; 47 CFR § 64.6401(a)(9). Would there be any reason to modify these evidentiary requirements for connected car services? 21. Other Actions to Protect Survivors Using Connected Car Services. Outside of the SCA, we seek comment on other authority the Commission could use and other steps the Commission could take to help prevent the misuse of connected car services. To the extent that connected car services are not covered by the SCA and Commission rules, are there other sources of authority the Commission could use to help address the misuse of these services? For example, could the Commission use its authority under other Title III provisions to adopt requirements that apply to the connected car services offered by wireless service providers and/or auto manufacturers? 22. Outside of formal Commission action, what steps can providers of connected car services take to prevent the misuse of connected car services in domestic violence situations? How can the Commission encourage providers to take such steps? What changes to the design and functionality of these services are needed to help protect survivors of domestic violence? In particular, we seek comment on what steps providers of connected car services could take to make it easier for survivors to turn off remote location tracking and other services that might enable abusers to track, control, or revictimize survivors. For example, for some connected car services it appears that only a vehicle owner or lessee may disable tracking features on the connected car app absent a court order. See, e.g., Mercedes Response Letter at 2; Stellantis Response Letter at 2. Should manufacturers permit their apps to allow multiple account holders so that survivors using a co-owned vehicle may access the app to turn off tracking features? How could companies change their policies to better respond to domestic violence situations? What other users or sets of users should be permitted to disable such features? Are there any risks that would arise if companies were to allow users other than the owner or lessee to disable any connected car services? 23. What are companies’ policies, and how can they best ensure that survivors are protected in instances when survivors request, and companies make, changes to location tracking or other connected services? Where companies do permit survivors who are not the primary account holder to request changes (such as turning off location data for a connected car service), do companies automatically send notices to primary account holders? If so, do companies need to notify a primary account holder (who may be an abuser) about such changes? Should companies set a uniform waiting period between when the company receives a request from a survivor and when the company notifies a primary account holder? Could companies delay notice to primary account holders until the company has approved and processed such requests, or do the companies need to communicate with primary account holders prior to making changes? 24. Are there other ways to allow vehicle tracking for legitimate safety reasons (e.g., driver safety or vehicle theft recovery) without making the tracking features accessible by abusers? Are there changes that automakers could make to alert unsuspecting survivors about tracking services that may be active in their vehicles? What other steps should auto manufacturers and wireless service providers consider to prevent the misuse of connected car services? Should they provide consumers with more information about the connectivity features, privacy controls, and other settings available in connected car services and apps? Should they develop more specific policies to address the misuse of connected car services in domestic violence situations? How can the Commission encourage auto manufacturers and wireless service providers to collaborate proactively with stakeholders to protect against misuse of connected car services? 25. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion. As noted earlier, the effects of domestic violence disproportionately impact women as well as people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other individuals who identify with historically marginalized demographics. See, e.g., National Domestic Violence Hotline, Domestic Violence Statistics, https://www.thehotline.org/stakeholders/domestic-violence-statistics (last visited Feb. 5, 2024); Abriana Herron, “New plan to address disproportionate impact of domestic violence on Black women,” wyfi, Indianapolis, (Jan. 10, 2024), https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/new-plan-to-address-disproportionate-impact-of-domestic-violence-on-black-women#:~:text=A%20key%20component%20of%20the,resources%20and%20restorative%20justice%20programming (last visited Feb. 27, 2024); Jamila K. Stockman, et al., Intimate Partner Violence and Its Health Impact on Disproportionately Affected Populations, Including Minorities and Impoverished Groups, J Womens Health, Jan. 1, 2015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4302952/ (last visited Feb. 15, 2024). The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended provides that the FCC “regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.” 47 U.S.C. § 151. including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, women, LGBTQ+ persons, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations The term “equity” is used here consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; women and girls; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 2021). and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority. IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 26. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 47 CFR § 1.1200(a). Although the rules do not generally require ex parte presentations to be treated as “permit but disclose” in Notice of Inquiry proceedings, see 47 CFR § 1.1204(b)(1), we exercise our discretion in this instance, and find that the public interest is served by making ex parte presentations available to the public, in order to encourage a robust record. See id. § 1.1200(a). 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), 47 CFR § 1.1206(b). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 27. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to sections 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) or by paper. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. · Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically by accessing ECFS at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. · Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Paper filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. · 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, DA 20-304, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. · 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, D.C. 20554. 28. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice). 29. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Id. § 605(b). Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule and policy changes contained in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. 30. Paperwork Reduction Act. 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. 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. 31. Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this Further Notice will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings. 32. Further Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Thomas Hastings of the Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at Thomas.Hastings@fcc.gov. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 254, 345, and 403; section 5(b) of the Safe Connections Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-223, 136 Stat 2280; and section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429; that this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED. 34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Office of the Secretary SHALL SEND a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 24-38 APPENDIX A Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. See id. A. Need for and Objectives of the Proposed Rules 2. Connectivity services in modern vehicles such as hands-free communication or find-your-car are intended to function as convenient tools for passengers and drivers. However, in the hands of an abuser, those same services can be used to stalk, harass, and intimidate survivors of domestic violence. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment generally from small and other entities on the ways that connected car services are used and what further action the Commission can take to help protect domestic violence survivors from misuse of these services. First, based on the responses the Commission received to the information requests sent by the Chairwoman, the Further Notice describes and seeks comment on the Commission’s understanding of wireless-service providers’ and auto manufacturers’ connected car service offerings. The Further Notice also seeks additional information on any other connected car services that are available in today’s marketplace. Next, the Further Notice seeks comment on whether changes to the Commission’s rules implementing the Safe Connections Act (SCA) are necessary to address the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors. See Safe Connections Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-223, 116 Stat. 2280 (Safe Connections Act or SCA); see also 47 U.S.C. § 345(a)(3). In November 2023, the Commission adopted a Report and Order implementing the Safe Connections Act. Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence et al., WC Docket No. 22-238, Report and Order, FCC 23-96, (Nov. 16, 2023) (SCA Report and Order). Finally, the Further Notice seeks comment on other actions the Commission can take to help protect survivors using connected car services, other potential sources of authority for Commission action, and how best to encourage connected car service providers to take proactive steps to protect survivors against abuse of these services. B. Legal Basis 3. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 254, 345, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 254, 345, and 403; section 5(b) of the Safe Connections Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-223, 136 Stat 2280; and section 904 of Division N, Title IX of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, as amended by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” Id. § 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. § 632. 5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6). First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?,” https://advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Whats-New-Infographic-March-2023-508c.pdf (Mar. 2023). These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses. Id. 6. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number small organizations in this small entity description. See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt Organizations – Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard. We note that the IRS data does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or dominant in its field. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS. See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf. The IRS Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-exempt/non-profit organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-Northeast Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (213,840) that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data does not include information for Puerto Rico. 7. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5). U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments See 13 U.S.C. § 161. The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with “2” and “7”. See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/about.html. indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. Local governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts). See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, See id. at tbl.5. County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 2,105 county governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments. municipal, and town or township See id. at tbl.6. Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 18,729 municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. ) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts See id. at tbl.10. Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 12,040 independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000. See also tbl.4. Special-Purpose Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017. with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments category. Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments category. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.” This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10. 8. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. Id. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112). U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Id. Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 9. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410. Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Id. Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities. 10. Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Providers (Wireless ISPs or WISPs). Formerly included in the scope of the Internet Service Providers (Broadband), Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and All Other Telecommunications small entity industry descriptions. Providers of wireless broadband Internet access service include fixed and mobile wireless providers. The Commission defines a WISP as “[a] company that provides end-users with wireless access to the Internet[.]” Federal Communications Commission, Internet Access Services: Status as of June 30, 2019 at 27, Fig. 30 (IAS Status 2019), Industry Analysis Division, Office of Economics & Analytics (March 2022). The report can be accessed at https://www.fcc.gov/economics-analytics/industry-analysis-division/iad-data-statistical-reports. Wireless service that terminates at an end user location or mobile device and enables the end user to receive information from and/or send information to the Internet at information transfer rates exceeding 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction is classified as a broadband connection under the Commission’s rules. See 47 CFR § 1.7001(a)(1). Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a size standard specifically applicable to Wireless Broadband Internet Access Service Providers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112). U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. 11. Additionally, according to Commission data on Internet access services as of June 30, 2019, nationwide there were approximately 1,237 fixed wireless and 70 mobile wireless providers of connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction. See IAS Status 2019, Fig. 30. The Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for providers of these services, therefore, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of providers that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business size standard. However, based on data in the Commission’s 2022 Communications Marketplace Report on the small number of large mobile wireless nationwide and regional facilities-based providers, the dozens of small regional facilities-based providers and the number of wireless mobile virtual network providers in general, See Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 22-203, 2022 WL 18110553 at 27, paras. 64-68. (2022) (2022 Communications Marketplace Report). as well as on terrestrial fixed wireless broadband providers in general, Id. at 8, para. 22. we believe that the majority of wireless Internet access service providers can be considered small entities. 12. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517911 Telecommunications Resellers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517911&year=2017&details=517911. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Id. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Id. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Id. The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121). U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517911, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517911&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Id. Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 13. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517911 Telecommunications Resellers,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517911&year=2017&details=517911. is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Id. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Id. The SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121). U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517911, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517911&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll services. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-391070A1.pdf. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Id. Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities. 14. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Id. Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. Id. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small. 15. Automobile Manufacturing. This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) manufacturing complete automobiles (i.e., body and chassis or unibody) or (2) manufacturing automobile chassis only. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “336111 Automotive Manufacturing,” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=336111&year2017&details=336111. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 employees or less as small. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 336111 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 336110). 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 157 firms operated in this industry for the entire year. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 336111, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=336111&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false. Of this number, 145 firms employed fewer than 100 employees. Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard. Therefore, the Commission estimates that the majority of manufacturers in this industry are small entities. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 16. The Further Notice seeks comment on the ways that connected car services are used and steps the Commission can take to help protect survivors of domestic violence from misuse of these services. The Commission states that the FCC’s rules implementing the SCA apply to connected car services that involve a “shared mobile service contract” offered by a “covered provider” as defined under the rules and would require a provider to respond to a valid request for a line separation. The Further Notice seeks comment on the extent to which the FCC’s existing SCA rules do not fully address concerns regarding the impact of connected car services on domestic violence survivors and whether changes to these rules would enable the Commission to better address these concerns. Outside of the SCA, the Further Notice seeks comment on other sources of authority the Commission can use to help address the misuse of connected car services. 17. While the Further Notice does not specifically propose new rules, the Commission does discuss application of the existing SCA rules in a new context and to potentially additional entities. The Commission seeks comment from small and other entities on whether any changes to the SCA rules are necessary. If the Commission ultimately decides to make any changes to the SCA rules in the connected car context, this could potentially result in additional costs, new or modified recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements for small and other providers. For example, the existing SCA rules require covered providers, within two business days of receiving a completed request from a survivor, to (1) separate the line of the survivor, and the line of any individual in the care of the survivor, from a shared mobile service contract, or (2) separate the line of the abuser from a shared mobile service contract. We seek comment on the impact to compliance for small and other entities as a result of rules reflecting a broader application of the SCA. 18. At present, the record does not include a detailed cost/benefit analysis that would allow us to quantify the costs of compliance for small entities, including whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire professionals to comply with any rules that may be adopted. Small and other entities are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirement that may be established in this proceeding. The Commission expects the comments it receives on its proposals, and the matters discussed in the Further Notice to include information addressing costs, benefits, and other matters of concern for small entities, which should help the Commission identify and better evaluate compliance costs and relevant issues for small entities before adopting final rules. E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 19. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4). 20. The Further Notice considers alternative approaches for addressing the misuse of connected car services. It discusses application of the existing SCA rules in the connected car services context and seeks comment on whether any changes to the SCA rules are necessary to address these services. To the extent that connected car services are or could be covered by the SCA, the Further Notice seeks comment on how line separation requirements would apply. The Further Notice also asks whether there are operational or technical issues that would affect implementation, including for small entity providers. The Further Notice also seeks comment on an alternative, non-regulatory approach that would minimize potential burden and provide additional flexibility for connected car providers, including any small entity providers. The Further Notice seeks comment on how the Commission can encourage connected car service providers to voluntarily take steps to prevent the misuse of connected car services in domestic violence situations. In particular, the Further Notice seeks comment on what steps providers of connected car services could take to make it easier for survivors to turn off remote location tracking and other services that might enable abusers to track, control, or revictimize domestic violence survivors. 21. Additionally, to assist with the Commission’s evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and alternatives that have been proposed in this proceeding, the Further Notice seeks alternative proposals and requests information on the potential costs of such alternatives. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the Further Notice, including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters could help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission’s evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted. F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules 22. None. 2 Federal Communications Commission "FCC XX-XXX" STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: Supporting Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence, WC Docket No. 22-238, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (April 8, 2024) The newest generation of cars are smartphones on wheels. They come with built-in connections. They can help a driver to locate their vehicle in a parking lot, turn on their car remotely, and reach out to first responders in an emergency even if the driver cannot call with a phone. But these conveniences in new vehicles rely on wireless services and location data that in the wrong hands can be used to do real harm. This is especially true for survivors of domestic violence—which include one in four women in this country and one in seven men. This problem was laid bare in an article late last year in The New York Times, which chronicled how connected cars are being weaponized by abusers to stalk and harass survivors. It was also last year that the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules to implement the Safe Connections Act. This law provides this agency with authority to assist survivors of domestic violence and abuse with secure access to communications. In the Safe Connections Act, Congress recognized that survivors need communications services they can count on, so that their abusers do not track and surveil them. That is why in our first effort to implement this statute, we required covered providers of communications to separate phone lines linked to family plans where the abuser is on the account. This means survivors can safely separate from their abusers tracking them through communications while also ensuring they have the separate service they need to stay connected to their family, friends, and supporters. After all, a phone is a lifeline; it is essential for survivors to rebuild their lives. Having access to a car is also a lifeline. It is a means of escape and independence, and it is often essential for those seeking employment and support. That is why in this rulemaking we propose that survivors should be able to separate lines that connect their cars, just like they can separate their phone lines from family plans. We also ask what more the Commission can do, and what industry can do, to make sure that survivors feel safe, secure, and free from harm when they use their cars. No survivor of domestic violence and abuse should have to choose between giving up their car and allowing themselves to be stalked and harmed by those who can access its connectivity and data. We can—and should—do more to make sure these new forms of communications help keep survivors safe. 2