[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31404-31420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09855]



[[Page 31403]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 111

June 11, 2021

Part III





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 52





Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 31404]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket No. 18-336; FCC 21-47; FR ID 24892]


Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 
2018

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
proposes to require covered text providers to support text messaging to 
988, the 3-digit dialing code to reach the National Suicide Prevention 
Lifeline. We seek comment on this proposal and related issues, such as 
the text message formats that covered text providers must transmit to 
988 and the timeframe for implementation.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 12, 2021, and reply comments 
are due on or before August 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 18-336, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 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. 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: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Sclater, Competition Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0388, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 18-336, 
adopted on April 22, 2021 and released on April 23, 2021. The full text 
of the document is available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-47A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (e.g., braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations 
(e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, 
etc.), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 
(TTY).

Synopsis

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Text-to-988 Can Save Lives

    1. In this FNPRM, we tentatively conclude that text-to-988 
functionality will greatly improve consumer access to the National 
Suicide Prevention Lifeline (Lifeline), particularly for at-risk 
populations, and thereby save lives. We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion, and on the benefits of text messaging as a means to 
facilitate access to the critical mental health resources offered by 
the Lifeline generally.
    2. We tentatively conclude that ensuring that Americans in crisis 
can text 988 is likely to save lives. In the 988 notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Commission observed that ``Americans, particularly 
younger Americans, increasingly rely on texting to communicate,'' and 
sought comment on how to account for this fact in establishing 988 as a 
nationwide 3-digit code for the Lifeline. In response, numerous experts 
in mental health and other fields have submitted comments in this 
proceeding underscoring the importance of texting as a vital 
communications medium by which many individuals may wish to obtain 
crisis counseling. Further, many of these commenters noted that texting 
is particularly important for ``members of vulnerable communities such 
as young people, low-income individuals, members of the LGBTQ 
community, and individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing.'' We seek 
comment on our tentative conclusion and the assertions of these 
commenters regarding the importance of texting as a means to access the 
lifesaving resources offered by the Lifeline.
    3. Just as ``Americans in crisis are in need of an easy-to-remember 
number to access the Lifeline's potentially life-saving resources'' by 
telephone, in our preliminary view Americans have a similarly strong 
need for an easy-to-remember number to reach the Lifeline by text. 
Because stakeholders will widely advertise 988 as the telephone number 
for the Lifeline, we preliminarily believe that providing text access 
at the same number will generate synergies that enhance the value of 
efforts to promote 988. Conversely, we fear that if text-to-988 is not 
available, Americans in crisis may be confused by efforts to promote 
988 as the Lifeline's telephone number and mistakenly believe that they 
can reach the Lifeline by texting 988, putting lives at risk. We seek 
comment on this preliminary analysis.
    4. As the Commission noted in the 988 Report and Order, young 
people are disproportionately at risk for mental health crises. They 
are also more likely to be most comfortable communicating via text. 
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, ``[n]early 95% of 
teens have access to smart phones and say that texting is the primary 
way that they connect.'' For this reason, the International Council for 
Helplines describes the increasing use of ``chat and text services . . 
. for those who are in a mental health crisis,'' pointing to a recent 
survey indicating that ``75% of millennials prefer texting over 
talking.'' According to Mental Health America, ``[m]ultiple sources of 
data demonstrate youth prefer communicating by text rather than 
calls,'' including a study finding that young people ``were more likely 
to forgo psychological support than talk in person or over the phone.'' 
As a result, Mental Health America argues, the ``data strongly support[ 
] the implementation of texting for providing resources to individuals 
experiencing suicidal ideation.'' We seek comment on these views and 
whether adopting a text-to-988 mandate would provide particular 
benefits for young Americans. Are young people more inclined to seek 
help by text than by telephone, and if

[[Page 31405]]

so, would making it easier to text the Lifeline save lives?
    5. In our preliminary view, facilitating Lifeline accessibility by 
text message to 988 is also likely to provide significant benefits to 
many other at-risk communities as well, further justifying our proposed 
mandate. As the Commission explained in the 988 Report and Order, a 
broad range of American communities are disproportionately impacted by 
suicide, including Veterans, LGBTQ individuals, racial and ethnic 
minorities, and rural Americans. Many members of these affected 
communities may prefer to seek help through text messages. For example, 
Mental Health America reports that data they collect demonstrate that 
individuals ``who identify as Black or African American are more likely 
to report that they would like to receive a phone number they can 
immediately call or text for help'' than members of any other race or 
ethnicity. Do commenters agree with Mental Health America that making 
crisis counseling services available via text message ``may mean the 
difference between accessing psychological support and forgoing it, 
especially among youth of color?'' Is Mental Health America correct 
that easy access to crisis services via text may be the difference 
between seeking and forgoing help for such groups, and if so would use 
of a 3-digit dialing code for the Lifeline make a significant 
difference in widespread understanding that such crisis services are 
available?
    6. Indeed, demographic evidence regarding usage of currently 
available non-governmental text and chat options indicate that texting 
is a particularly valuable means to obtain help, not only for young 
people, but also for many members of low income, minority, and other 
communities that are disproportionately impacted by mental health 
crises. Several commenters in this proceeding have pointed to the 
successes that private non-profit services like the Trevor Project have 
had in providing crisis counseling to at-risk communities through text 
messages, offering that their experiences demonstrate the need to 
provide text access to 988. In addition, as one commenter to the 988 
notice of proposed rulemaking argued, adding text access to 988 could 
allow the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line ``to more efficiently route 
those in need to specialized services,'' further leveraging the 
expertise of organizations like the Trevor Project, which provides 
mental health support and counseling specific to the needs of LGBTQ 
youth. We preliminarily agree with this assessment and believe that 
establishing text access to 988 will complement the important work 
already being done by these and other private sector organizations, and 
further facilitate access to the lifesaving resources offered by the 
Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line. We seek comment on these views and 
on the benefits of text-to-988 for at-risk groups. Are there additional 
at-risk communities that may benefit from texting as an option to 
access the Lifeline?
    7. Likewise, we preliminarily believe that our tentative conclusion 
is further justified because implementing text-to-988 capability will 
provide substantial benefits for individuals with disabilities who 
uniquely rely on text-based media to communicate. As the Communications 
Equality Advocates and others note, texting is an indispensable means 
of communication for individuals with disabilities. These individuals 
have increasingly adopted widely available text messaging platforms 
such as those offered by CMRS providers and interconnected text 
messaging services in lieu of specialized legacy devices. Further, 
texting may be the only means for such individuals to contact 988 
directly and efficiently. Access to telecommunications for individuals 
with disabilities is a longstanding Commission priority and statutory 
obligation, and facilitating access to 988 for deaf and hard of hearing 
individuals is a particularly important policy objective in light of 
studies finding a significantly increased risk of suicide among deaf 
and hard of hearing people when compared to those without hearing loss. 
We seek comment on these views and whether our proposal would ease 
access to lifesaving counseling for individuals with disabilities. Do 
commenters agree with the Communications Equality Advocates that the 
ability for individuals normally using text for the bulk of their 
communications, including people with disabilities, to access trained 
mental health professionals using text-to-988 will be of ``paramount 
importance''? Currently, how do people with disabilities reach the 
Lifeline? How would texting grant access or enhance their ability to 
communicate with the Lifeline? We seek comment on whether texting would 
be more accessible than the options currently available, including the 
Lifeline's online chat portal.
    8. We tentatively conclude that the potential lifesaving benefits 
of expanding access to suicide prevention and mental health crisis 
services for all Americans--and particularly the at-risk groups 
discussed above--justifies a text-to-988 mandate, and we seek comment 
on this view. The Commission's designation of 988 as the 3-digit 
telephone number for the Lifeline reflected its expectation that a 
simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code for suicide prevention 
and mental health crisis counseling would ``help increase the 
effectiveness of suicide prevention efforts, ease access to crisis 
services, reduce the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health 
conditions, and ultimately save lives.'' We preliminarily believe that 
establishing text access to 988 will further advance these important 
objectives by providing mental health crisis counseling through a 
nationally available, easy-to-remember number that Americans will also 
associate with the telephonic Lifeline. Do commenters agree with the 
Communications Equality Advocates that individuals in crisis ``are 
likely to first use their preferred, familiar mode of communication to 
reach out for help?'' We seek comment on this analysis, and on our 
proposed conclusion that a text-to-988 mandate is likely to offer 
substantial, lifesaving benefits to all Americans affected by mental 
health crises, particularly for many members of at-risk communities. Is 
a text-to-988 mandate likely to have a significant impact on the 
likelihood of Americans considering suicide or in a mental health 
crisis to contact the Lifeline? Would mandating text-to-988 amplify the 
benefits of promoting 988 as the telephone number for the Lifeline? 
What are the costs or drawbacks to our proposal?
    9. In our preliminary view, the Lifeline's soft launch of a texting 
capability is a significant changed circumstance that supports 
mandating text-to-988. When the Commission adopted the 988 Report and 
Order, the Lifeline was not capable of receiving or responding to text 
messages. The Commission, stating that it has no authority to require 
the Lifeline to develop texting capability, deferred ``consideration of 
mandating text-to-988 at this time so that we could revisit the issue 
promptly should the Lifeline develop integrated texting.'' Now, the 
Lifeline is capable of responding to texts sent to the Lifeline. The 
Lifeline's ability to respond to texts significantly strengthens the 
case for imposing a text-to-988 mandate on providers. We seek comment 
on this evaluation.
    10. We preliminarily expect many of the same lifesaving benefits 
from texting to 911 to accrue from texting to 988. In its comments in 
support of adopting a text-to-988 requirement, CTIA notes that text-to-
911 functionality ``has saved countless lives and enabled public safety 
to keep pace with the modern

[[Page 31406]]

communications preferences of consumers.'' Given the parallels between 
the Commission's efforts to promote text access to 911 and our 
proposals in this FNPRM, are there lessons learned in the context of 
establishing text-to-911 capability that would be instructive here? 
CTIA states that there are ``significant technical and policy 
differences between the national 9-8-8 service that will be 
administered by the Lifeline and the local 9-1-1 services that are 
administered by thousands of PSAPs.'' For example, unlike calls to 911, 
which carriers route to one of thousands of local PSAPs across the 
country based on the caller's geographic location, all calls to 988 are 
routed to a central toll free number, and are then directed within the 
Lifeline network to a local crisis center. How might these or other 
differences between the 911 and 988 networks affect our proposal to 
adopt a text-to-988 requirement?

B. Proposed Implementation of Text-to-988

1. Scope of Text-to-988 Requirement
    11. Text Formats. We seek comment on an appropriate scope of text 
messages that covered text providers must transmit to 988. At present, 
the Lifeline is capable of receiving text messages sent to the existing 
10-digit number in ``short message service'' (SMS) format. The 
Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules define the term `short message 
service' or SMS as ``a wireless messaging service that enables users to 
send and receive short text messages, typically 160 characters or 
fewer, to or from mobile phones and can support a host of 
applications.'' We recognize, however, that our federal partners may 
incorporate additional capabilities for receiving and responding to 
text messages in the future. We seek to adopt a forward-looking, 
flexible scope that can expand with the capabilities of the Lifeline 
without unnecessarily burdening covered text providers by requiring 
support of formats that the Lifeline is not yet capable of receiving. 
To that end, we propose (1) establishing a definition that sets the 
outer bound of text messages sent to 988 that covered text providers 
may be required to support; and (2) directing the Wireline Competition 
Bureau (Bureau) to identify text formats within the scope of that 
definition that the Lifeline can receive and thus covered text 
providers must support by routing to the 10-digit Lifeline number. We 
seek comment on this proposal in detail below.
    12. First, we propose to define the outer bound of text messages 
that covered text providers may be required to transmit to 988 based on 
the definition of ``text message'' that Congress enacted in 2018 in the 
context of Truth in Caller ID requirements:

    The term ``text message'' (i) means a message consisting of 
text, images, sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or 
from a device that is identified as the receiving or transmitting 
device by means of a 10-digit telephone number or N11 service code; 
(ii) includes a [SMS] message and a multimedia message service 
(commonly referred to as `MMS') message; and (iii) does not 
include--(I) a real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or 
(II) a message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another 
user of the same messaging service, except a message described in 
clause (ii).

    The Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules define MMS as ``a 
wireless messaging service that is an extension of the SMS protocol and 
can deliver a variety of media, and enables users to send pictures, 
videos, and attachments over wireless messaging channels.'' We seek 
comment on this proposed scope. We believe this definition has several 
advantages--it incorporates multimedia messages; it is not limited to 
specific technologies; and it reflects a recent determination by 
Congress, albeit in a different policy context. For the purpose of our 
text-to-988 rules, we propose adding ``or 988'' to the phrase ``10-
digit telephone number or N11 service code'' so that text messages from 
the Lifeline identified by the 3-digit code 988 are included within the 
scope of covered text providers' obligations, and we seek comment on 
this proposal. We seek comment on whether using the Truth in Caller ID 
definition appropriately sets an outer bound that would achieve our 
goals of adopting a forward-looking, flexible scope that can expand 
with the capabilities of the Lifeline without unnecessarily burdening 
covered text providers.
    13. We note that the Truth in Caller ID statutory definition of 
``text message'' excludes ``real-time, two-way voice or video 
communications,'' as well as ``messages sent over . . . IP-enabled 
messaging services to another user of the same messaging service.'' If 
we adopt the Truth in Caller ID definition, we seek comment on how we 
should interpret each of these two exclusions here. Is there any reason 
to adopt a different interpretation of the relevant exclusions in this 
context compared to the Truth in Caller ID context?'' Would adopting 
the Truth in Caller ID definition of ``text message,'' with the 
exclusions specified above, prevent us from possibly adding ``next-
generation'' text messages to our requirements in the future?
    14. We also seek comment on alternative outer scopes of required 
texts. For instance, should we adopt the scope of our text-to-911 
rules, which require providers to route ``a message, consisting of text 
characters, sent to the short code `911' and intended to be delivered 
to a PSAP by a covered text provider, regardless of the text messaging 
platform used''? In the Text-to-911 Second Report and Order, the 
Commission identified SMS and MMS messages as examples of text messages 
included within the scope of this proposed rule. We seek comment on 
whether the Truth in Caller ID definition, the text-to-911 definition, 
or another definition offers the best model here. We note that the 
Truth in Caller ID model is newer than the text-to-911 definition, 
originates with Congress rather than the Commission, and unlike the 
text-to-911 definition explicitly includes images, sounds, and other 
non-textual information. On the other hand, the Commission developed 
the text-to-911 definition in a more analogous policy context than the 
Truth in Caller ID definition. Do these or other considerations suggest 
that one or the other model is superior?
    15. Should we ensure that any definition we adopt encompasses next-
generation forms of text messaging, such as MMS, Rich Communications 
Services (RCS), and/or real-time text (RTT), and what modifications--if 
any--would we need to make to the definitions we are considering to 
ensure that such forms are within our proposed scope? RCS has been 
described as a ``successor protocol'' to SMS, or as ``next-generation'' 
SMS. What are the fundamental differences between SMS, MMS, and RCS? 
How would the costs to implement SMS, MMS, and RCS differ? The 
Commission has previously concluded that ``messages sent over other IP-
enabled messaging services that are not SMS or MMS--such as [RCS]--are 
excluded from'' the Truth in Caller ID definition of text message ``to 
the extent such messages are sent to other users of the same messaging 
service.'' Would it be necessary to modify the Truth in Caller ID 
definition for our purposes to ensure that it includes RCS or other 
next-generation services?
    16. We also seek comment on whether we should ensure that our 
proposed outer bound definition of text message encompasses RTT. 
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., et al. have 
urged us to mandate the ability to reach 988 by RTT, noting that the 
Commission ``has acknowledged the benefits of RTT in crisis situations 
such as `allow[ing] for interruption and reduc[ing] the risk of crossed 
messages

[[Page 31407]]

because the . . . call taker is able to read the caller's message as it 
is being typed, rather than waiting until the caller presses the `send' 
key.'' We seek comment on this assertion and other potential benefits 
and drawbacks of RTT to 988. We note that pursuant to the 2016 RTT 
Order, all wireless service providers are permitted to support RTT on 
their IP networks for purposes of 911 compliance (and for purposes of 
complying with the general accessibility requirements of Parts 6, 7, 
and 14 of the Commission's rules) as an alternative to supporting TTY 
communications over IP. In light of the deployment of such RTT 
capabilities in wireless IP networks, are there any impediments to 
wireless service providers routing RTT texts to the 988 number, in the 
event that Lifeline chooses to support RTT? Do newer text messaging 
protocols like RTT and RCS represent a significant portion of the text 
messaging ecosystem, or are they likely to in the near future? Are 
consumers likely to expect the ability to use these kinds of platforms 
to send text messages to 988? Do these texting solutions make texting 
more accessible for individuals with disabilities? Are there other 
reasons to include, or exclude, these types of applications from our 
definition? Are there any text message formats that we should 
specifically exclude from the definition we adopt? For example, in 
crafting the text-to-911 rules, the Commission chose to exclude from 
its requirements a variety of services, including ``relay service . . . 
, mobile satellite service (MSS), and in-flight text messaging 
services,'' as well as ``text messages that originate from Wi-Fi only 
locations or that are transmitted from devices that cannot access the 
CMRS network.'' Should we adopt any similar exclusions here?
    17. Second, we seek comment on how to structure our delegation to 
the Bureau to ensure that covered text providers support formats within 
the scope of the definition we adopt that the Lifeline can receive. We 
propose, as an initial matter, requiring covered text providers to 
support transmission of SMS messages to 988, since that is what the 
Lifeline can presently receive. We further propose directing the 
Bureau, after consultation with our federal partners at SAMHSA and the 
VA, to issue a Public Notice no less frequently than annually proposing 
and seeking comment on requiring covered text providers to transmit any 
new message formats to 988 that the Lifeline can receive and that are 
within the scope of the definition we adopt. If the Bureau proposes 
requiring implementation of a new message format, we further propose 
directing the Bureau, after notice and comment, to issue a second 
Public Notice, requiring covered text providers to transmit the new 
message format to 988 by a fixed deadline that we specify unless the 
record demonstrates that implementation is not technically feasible. We 
seek comment on this proposal. Does it appropriately balance the need 
for expedient implementation with avoiding unduly burdening covered 
text providers with implementing formats that the Lifeline cannot 
receive? Should we require the Bureau to issue a Public Notice more or 
less often than annually? Or is there another mechanism, such as one 
similar to the Commission's Text-to-911 PSAP registry, whereby PSAPs 
issue a valid request for texting service from covered text providers, 
that we should consider? Is technical feasibility an appropriate 
standard for exclusion, or do commenters recommend a different 
standard? Should we have a standard for exclusion by the Bureau at all? 
If we do not have a standard for excluding certain technologies, is 
notice and comment necessary? What is an appropriate implementation 
deadline for us to specify after the Bureau issues its Public Notice 
requiring implementation? For instance, would six months be sufficient? 
Should we instead allow the Bureau flexibility to set an appropriate 
deadline? Should we provide any further direction to the Bureau 
regarding the evaluation we propose to require?
    18. We also seek comment on structuring the scope of covered text 
messages differently. For instance, should we simply adopt a definition 
of ``text message'' and require covered text providers to support all 
such formats, regardless of whether the Lifeline can support that 
format presently? Should we adopt a narrower definition of ``text 
message'' that conforms to what the Lifeline can support at present? 
While we appreciate the simplicity of either of these approaches 
compared to our proposal, how would commenters address our concern that 
the former is unnecessarily burdensome, and the latter is not 
adequately future-proofed?
    19. Covered Text Providers. We propose to apply our text-to-988 
requirement to ``covered text providers'' as that term is defined in 
the text-to-911 rules, to ``include[ ] all CMRS providers as well as 
all providers of interconnected text messaging services that enable 
consumers to send text messages to and receive text messages from all 
or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including 
through the use of applications downloaded or otherwise installed on 
mobile phones.'' We note that the term ``covered text provider'' used 
in this notice of proposed rulemaking differs from the term ``covered 
providers'' used in the rules the Commission adopted in the 988 Order, 
which refers to all telecommunications carriers, interconnected VoIP 
providers, and one-way VoIP providers. We seek comment on this 
proposal, and on any alternative approaches to the scope of entities 
that must establish text-to-988 transmission capability. For example, 
if we can apply the definition of ``text message'' in the Truth in 
Caller ID rules to texting to 988, should we apply our text-to-988 
rules to providers of ``text messaging services,'' as defined in 
section 227 of the Act and our Truth in Caller ID rules? In that 
context, we define ``text messaging service'' as ``a service that 
enables the transmission or receipt of a text message.'' Is the Truth 
in Caller ID model preferable, for instance because it may incorporate 
a broader range of providers that support text messaging service, or is 
our proposal preferable, for instance because it is more specific? We 
also seek comment on other possible models and scopes of covered 
providers. Would using ``CMRS providers'' exclude services over certain 
spectrum bands or non-switched wireless services that transmit text 
messages to 988, and should we instead include ``wireless carriers,'' 
or a different term, in our definition of ``covered text providers?''
    20. Interconnected Text Messaging Services. In adopting the text-
to-911 rules, the Commission observed that there are a variety of 
widely available text messaging services and platforms with different 
technological capabilities, including SMS, MMS, and ``over-the-top'' 
(OTT) applications delivered over internet protocol (IP)-based mobile 
data networks. As the Commission explained in the Text-to-911 Second 
Report and Order, ``SMS requires use of an underlying carrier's SMS 
Center (SMSC) to send and receive messages from other users'' while 
``[MMS]-based messaging makes use of the SMSC but also involves the use 
of different functional elements to enable transport of the message 
over IP networks.'' A third category, OTT applications, may be offered 
by CMRS providers or third parties and allow consumers ``to send text 
messages using SMS, MMS or directly via IP over a data connection to 
dedicated messaging servers and gateways.'' These OTT services, which 
are often downloaded through mobile app stores, are increasingly 
popular with consumers and may be interconnected with the publicly

[[Page 31408]]

switched telephone network (PSTN) or not. For purposes of the 
Commission's text-to-911 rules, interconnected text messaging 
applications enable consumers to ``send text messages to all or 
substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers and receive text 
messages from the same,'' while non-interconnected applications ``only 
support communication with a defined set of users of compatible 
applications but do not support general communication with text-capable 
telephone numbers.'' The Commission's text-to-911 rules include 
interconnected text messaging services but exclude non-interconnected 
applications because they do not provide the ability to communicate 
with text-capable U.S. telephone numbers.
    21. As in the text-to-911 rules, we propose to apply our text-to-
988 requirements to interconnected text messaging services, thereby 
excluding non-interconnected applications from the requirements. We 
seek comment on this approach. This approach is also analogous to the 
Commission's decision in the 988 Report and Order to apply to 
``providers that access the [PSTN] on an interconnected basis to reach 
all Americans'' and any ``providers that access the [PSTN] on an 
interconnected basis to reach all Americans.'' We note that the 
Commission's Truth in Caller ID rules provide an exemption for messages 
``sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another user of the same 
messaging service, except [for an SMS or MMS message],'' which 
similarly operates to exclude non-interconnected text messaging 
services. Since the services provided by the Lifeline require two-way 
communication and, by definition, non-interconnected text messaging 
applications cannot support two-way texting with ``all or substantially 
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers,'' we believe it is unlikely 
that these services would be technically capable of supporting text-to-
988 functionality. We seek comment on this view. Are there any tools 
available to the Commission to mitigate the potential for consumer 
confusion regarding the availability of text-to-988 across different 
text messaging platforms and technologies, particularly with respect to 
non-interconnected text messaging applications?
2. Routing Texts to 988
    22. We propose to require that covered text providers route covered 
988 text messages to the Lifeline's current 10-digit number, 1-800-273-
8255 (TALK), and we seek comment on this proposal. This proposal is 
consistent with the Commission's decision for routing calls to 988 in 
the 988 Report and Order. In the 988 Report and Order, the Commission 
required ``that service providers transmit all calls initiated by an 
end user dialing 988 to the current toll free access number for the 
Lifeline,'' finding that a centralized routing solution will allow for 
faster implementation of the 988 3-digit dialing code, lower costs to 
maintain 988 routing, and provide continued easy access to Lifeline by 
callers with disabilities. We preliminarily believe that there are 
similar benefits to routing texts to 988 to a single, centralized 
number and seek comment on this view.
    23. There is support in the record thus far for routing to the 
Lifeline. CTIA supports directing texts sent to 988 to the Lifeline as 
a ``central point for receiving such communications,'' consistent with 
the Commission's mandate for routing 988 voice calls. Vibrant Emotional 
Health, the administrator of the Lifeline, argues in support of text-
to-988 functionality integrated into the current Lifeline structure for 
routing voice and chat services, with oversight squarely within the 
role of the Lifeline's administrator. We seek comment on these 
assessments.
    24. We anticipate that requiring covered text providers to route to 
a single destination provides SAMHSA and the VA with flexibility to 
develop their own routing solutions among the local crisis centers, 
including adding new crisis centers in the future, as compared to 
requiring covered text providers to implement additional updates or 
routing changes as more centers are added. Callers to 1-800-273-8255 
(TALK) can reach the Veterans Crisis Line by pressing option 1 to 
connect with one of three linked call centers in New York, Georgia, or 
Kansas. For other calls, calls to the Lifeline from anywhere in the 
United States are routed to the closest certified local crisis center 
according to the caller's area code or, should the closest center be 
overwhelmed by call volume, experience a disruption of service, or if 
the call is placed from part of a state not covered by Lifeline's 
network, the system automatically routes calls to a backup center. We 
seek comment on this preliminary analysis. Do the current obligations 
to route voice calls to 988 to the Lifeline 10-digit number offer any 
opportunities for streamlining implementation or reducing costs 
associated with routing texts to 988 to the same number?
    25. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether instead to 
follow a model more comparable to the text-to-911 architecture, whereby 
covered text providers route directly to a PSAP by requiring routing 
directly to a Lifeline local crisis center or to a Veterans Crisis Line 
crisis center. We anticipate that this approach would be significantly 
more costly than centralized routing and seek comment on this 
preliminary view. Is it easier to route texts to a single number than 
to individual crisis centers? As the Veterans Crisis Line is not 
currently set up for geographic distribution, would this architecture 
be appropriate for messages by Veterans or Service Members? Are covered 
text providers able to leverage existing text-to-911 systems to reduce 
costs if required to route texts to 988 directly to local crisis 
centers? In the 988 Report and Order, the Commission recognized that 
some commenters expressed there may be benefits to routing voice calls 
to individual crisis centers, such as familiarity with a caller's area 
and potentially easier coordination with local emergency services, but 
ultimately concluded that the advantages associated with routing to a 
single number outweighed the benefits of localized routing. Does that 
rationale apply here? Are there benefits to routing texts to the 
individual crisis centers that are unique to text messages, such as 
providing localized support to the public in the vicinity of the crisis 
center? What are the costs or drawbacks to covered text providers to 
route texts to the Lifeline 10-digit number versus the local crisis 
centers? Which approach will lead to speedier implementation, and how 
should that impact our analysis? Is there another alternative approach, 
other than centralized routing or routing by crisis center, that we 
should consider?
    26. Currently, Veterans and Service Members may dial the Lifeline 
to reach the Veterans Crisis Line via voice call, but the Lifeline 
texting service and the VA's short code texting service require 
contacting separate numbers. How should we account for this distinction 
in evaluating what rules to adopt to ensure that Veterans, Service 
Members, and their families are able to reach the Veterans Crisis Line 
directly and promptly? We seek comment on whether and how we can act to 
facilitate integration of the Veterans Crisis Line's separate short 
code-based texting service into text-to-988 routing. Are there specific 
actions that the Commission should take to allow users to text 988 and 
reach both the Lifeline and Veteran-specific assistance? For instance, 
should we require covered text providers to provide an automated 
inquiry as to whether the texter is a Veteran or Service Member and 
route

[[Page 31409]]

the text to either the existing Lifeline number or the existing short 
code for Veterans depending on the response? Alternatively, would it be 
feasible to immediately prompt individuals texting to 988 to reply with 
the number ``1'' or ``Vet'' to be routed to the Veterans Crisis Line, 
similar to the experience for voice callers? Are other prompts 
preferable? We seek comment on possible solutions to ensure that texts 
are routed to the proper counseling services via the Lifeline or the 
Veterans Crisis Line, including input on technical feasibility, ways to 
minimize consumer confusion, and implementation costs. Should other 
text or chat services be integrated into 988 text routing, and if so, 
how?
    27. We seek comment on whether we should require covered text 
providers to enable text-to-988 messages to include location 
information. As required by the National Suicide Hotline Designation 
Act of 2020, the Bureau will report to Congress on the costs and 
feasibility of providing location information with 988 calls on April 
17, 2021. In our preliminary view, given that we have not adopted a 
location mandate in the context of calls to 988, we believe it would be 
premature to adopt a mandate here, and we seek comment on this view. 
Does someone who sends a text message to 988 expect that their location 
will be transmitted to the Lifeline? If consumers generally are aware 
that calls and texts to 911 include their location, would the same 
expectation apply to texts to 988? Would including location information 
deter at-risk individuals from texting to 988? We seek comment on any 
complications inherent in this plan and on ways for covered text 
providers to work with SAMHSA and the VA to limit misrouting of texts.
3. Implementation Timeframe for Text-to-988
    28. Uniform Nationwide Deadline. We seek comment on an appropriate 
implementation timeframe for requiring covered text providers to 
support texting to 988 on a nationwide basis. We preliminarily propose 
adopting a uniform nationwide deadline for implementation for all 
covered text providers and for all covered 988 text messages, as 
determined by the Bureau. In the 988 Report and Order, the Commission 
determined that the ``rollout of 988 will be most effective if [it] set 
a single implementation deadline so that stakeholders can clearly and 
consistently communicate to the American public when 988 will be 
universally available.'' We preliminarily believe that the same holds 
true here, and we seek comment on this view. Are there other benefits 
to a uniform nationwide implementation deadline? What drawbacks, if 
any, exist?
    29. Although we propose adopting a uniform nationwide deadline, we 
seek comment on whether we should adopt any extensions or exemptions 
for certain classes of providers or categories of text messages. Should 
we adopt any extensions or exemptions for smaller, rural, or regional 
covered text providers? If so, under what circumstances would such 
exemptions be appropriate? Are there unique technical considerations 
that necessitate different implementation timelines for certain covered 
text providers? If so, what are they and why? Are there any other 
considerations, such as any existing contractual obligations between 
our federal partners and other entities, that we should take into 
account in setting a deadline or deadlines?
    30. Appropriate Deadline. We observe that CTIA and other commenters 
have previously argued that the Commission should not mandate text-to-
988 before the Lifeline is capable of receiving and responding to 
texts, in part because the Lifeline's readiness to receive and respond 
to text messages is crucial to implementing text-to-988 successfully. 
We seek comment on this assertion. We also seek comment on CTIA's 
proposal to require covered text providers to ``deliver text-to-988 to 
the Lifeline by July 16, 2022, or six months after the Lifeline 
demonstrates its readiness to accept text messages, whichever is 
later.'' Is the Lifeline's pilot program sufficient to demonstrate that 
it is ready to accept text messages? If not, how should we determine 
that the Lifeline has demonstrated readiness to accept text messages, 
both from a technical and operational standpoint? How should we take 
into account the capabilities of the Veterans Crisis Line in 
establishing a deadline? Understanding that the Lifeline and Veterans 
Crisis Line successfully accepting and responding to text messages to 
988 will require coordination between several stakeholders, we 
emphasize that the Commission will continue to coordinate closely with 
our federal partners, SAMHSA and the VA, in their efforts to enable 
crisis centers to respond to text messages to 988 and establish a 
reasonable implementation timeframe for text-to-988. We reiterate that 
the Commission does not wish to determine for SAMHSA how it allocates 
the Lifeline's resources, nor do we have the authority to require the 
Lifeline and its crisis centers to be capable of receiving and 
responding to text messages to 988.
    31. We seek comment on whether the Commission should require all 
covered text providers to support text-to-988 by July 16, 2022, the 
same implementation deadline for telecommunications carriers, 
interconnected VoIP providers, and one-way VoIP providers to support 
voice calls to 988. Is this technically, economically and operationally 
feasible? Are there benefits to requiring a uniform implementation 
timeline for all voice and text communications to 988? We observe that 
some covered text providers have already implemented voice calling to 
988. For those providers, will requiring covered text providers to 
implement text-to-988 on the same timeline as voice calling to 988 
create any efficiencies, such as reducing fixed costs? Is there an 
expectation that once 988 is deployed nationwide for voice 
communications that texting to 988 will be similarly available? Will a 
uniform implementation deadline discourage covered text providers from 
potentially supporting text to 988 before July 16, 2022? Are there 
other potential benefits or drawbacks to uniform implementation 
deadlines for providers supporting voice calling and texting to 988?
    32. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should separate 
the timeline for implementing text-to-988 from the implementation 
timeline for voice-to-988. Is a phased-in approach preferable? Would it 
be beneficial to consider balance of telecommunications activation 
needs and organizational response needs by SAMHSA and the VA? Would it 
be less burdensome on providers working to implement 988 for voice 
calls in accordance with the 988 Report and Order? Would a phased-in 
implementation timeline create consumer confusion regarding the 
availability of texting to 988? If phased-in implementation deadlines 
would create consumer confusion, would requiring certain covered text 
providers to implement text-to-988 more quickly minimize consumer 
confusion? For example, if a covered text provider has already 
implemented voice calling to 988 and is advertising the availability of 
988 to its customers, should the provider be required to implement 
text-to-988 before other covered text providers? Are there other risks 
associated with a phased-in approach to an implementation timeline for 
voice and text communications to 988 as compared to uniform 
implementation timeline? What, if any, phased-in deadlines should the 
Commission consider?
    33. We also seek comment on whether we should we adopt the same 
timeline for all covered text providers, regardless of the text 
messaging technology they use. Are there other preparedness concerns 
that we should take into

[[Page 31410]]

consideration when determining an implementation timeframe?
4. Technical Considerations
    34. We seek comment on the specific technical considerations for 
covered text providers and equipment and software vendors--including 
those providers who are rural or small businesses--necessary to 
implement text-to-988. We propose to allow covered text providers to 
use any reliable method or methods (e.g., mobile-switched, IP-based) to 
support text routing and transmission to 988, similar to text-to-911 
implementation. We seek comment on this proposal.
    35. Network Upgrades. We seek comment on possible upgrades covered 
text providers would have to make to their networks to support text-to-
988 capability. Since we propose to allow covered text providers to use 
any reliable method or methods to support text routing and delivery to 
988, are any necessary network hardware or software upgrades small in 
scope? What specific components would require upgrading? Can the 
current solutions to enable text-to-911 capability be leveraged to 
support text-to-988, or are the implementation options for covered text 
providers to support text-to-988 significantly different? CTIA notes 
``there are significant technical and policy differences between 
national 9-8-8 service that will be administered by the Lifeline and 
the local 9-1-1 services that are administered by thousands of PSAPs.'' 
We seek comment on CTIA's view, especially with regard to any 
``significant'' technical differences. Conversely, do commenters agree 
with Communications Equality Advocates that the costs to covered text 
providers for implementation of text-to-988 should be substantially 
lower than those associated with implementing text-to-911? We seek 
further comment on the potential integration of text-to-988 solutions 
with existing systems, as well as other network considerations specific 
to covered text providers to support text-to-988.
    36. We also seek comment on whether there are unique network 
considerations for different text messaging service technologies within 
the proposed outer bound scope of text-to-988 service that impact 
implementation. CTIA comments that its member companies are 
``optimistic about the technical feasibility of supporting text-to-
988,'' provided that implementation is consistent with existing 
capabilities of native SMS messaging. Do commenters agree? Are there 
fewer network upgrades necessary to support SMS-only texts to 988? What 
specific network upgrades would be required should we obligate covered 
text providers to support other text messaging formats, such as MMS, 
RTT, or RCS? Given that the Commission has recognized MMS as ``an 
extension of the SMS protocol,'' would support for MMS messaging be 
comparably feasible to support for SMS? How does the evolution of 
texting services to new or future formats affect network upgrade 
options and implementation, and how should our rules account for such 
evolution? Would requiring support for certain text messaging formats 
be more feasible for covered text providers to implement than others?
    37. We specifically seek comment on the technical implementation 
capability and network upgrades necessary for interconnected text 
messaging service providers. Similar to the Commission's conclusion in 
the Text-to-911 proceeding, we anticipate that many interconnected text 
messaging service providers may choose to use a CMRS network-based 
solution to deliver texts to 988 and seek comment on this expectation. 
Have there been developments in text-to-911 delivery by interconnected 
text messaging service providers that such providers can use in text-
to-988 implementation? In the text-to-911 context, the Commission's 
rules state:

    To the extent that CMRS providers offer Short Message Service 
(SMS), they shall allow access by any other covered text provider to 
the capabilities necessary for transmission of 911 text messages 
originating on such other covered text providers' application 
services. Covered text providers using the CMRS network to deliver 
911 text messages must clearly inform consumers that, absent an SMS 
plan with the consumer's underlying CMRS provider, the covered text 
provider may be unable to deliver 911 text messages. CMRS providers 
may migrate to other technologies and need not retain SMS networks 
solely for other covered text providers' 911 use, but must notify 
the affected covered text providers not less than 90 days before the 
migration is to occur.

    We seek comment on adopting this or a comparable requirement here. 
We recognize that text-to-911 network integration is necessary to 
facilitate a CMRS network-based solution, and we seek comment on 
whether the same integration is necessary for transmission of text-to-
988 communications by other covered text providers using that solution. 
We seek comment on the relationship between CMRS providers and 
interconnected text messaging service providers to maintain support and 
capability for text-to-988 service based on the technical solutions 
available. We emphasize that, as in the text-to-911 proceeding, even if 
we were to adopt a rule comparable to the text-to-911 rule above, we do 
not intend to establish an open-ended obligation for CMRS providers to 
maintain underlying SMS network support merely for the use of other 
providers. Further, similar to the Commission's position in the Text-
to-911 Second Report and Order, if we adopt a rule comparable to the 
text-to-911 rule above, we propose concluding that it is the 
responsibility of the covered text provider using the CMRS-based 
solution to ensure that its text messaging service is technically 
compatible with the CMRS providers' SMS-based network and devices, and 
in conformance with any applicable technical standards. We seek comment 
on this proposal. Finally, as in the text-to-911 context, if we adopt a 
rule comparable to the text-to-911 rule above, we propose requiring 
CMRS providers to make any necessary specifications for accessing their 
SMS networks available to other covered text providers upon request, 
and to inform such covered text providers in advance of any changes to 
these specifications. We seek comment on this proposal.
    38. We also seek comment on specific technical considerations for 
covered text providers that are rural or regional providers, or small 
businesses. Are there unique impediments or challenges to 
implementation that these types of providers face that warrant further 
consideration?
    39. Equipment Upgrades. We seek comment on possible equipment or 
software upgrades required for covered text providers to implement 
text-to-988. What challenges will equipment (e.g., handsets, network 
infrastructure) and software vendors face with respect to the 
implementation and deployment of text-to-988? For example, are upgrades 
required for operating systems, firmware, or other software on mobile 
devices to support text-to-988 capability? Are there upgrades necessary 
by vendors that are beyond the covered text providers' control that 
require additional coordination? Will new standards need to be defined 
to ensure interoperability?
    40. In the Text-to-911 proceeding, the Commission clarified that 
legacy devices that are incapable of sending texts via 3-digit codes 
are not subject to the text-to-911 requirements, provided the software 
for these devices cannot be upgraded over the air to allow text-to-911. 
If the device's text messaging software can be upgraded over the air to 
support a text to 911, however, then the Commission required the 
covered text provider to make the necessary software upgrade available. 
Should we include a

[[Page 31411]]

similar exemption for legacy devices under any text-to-988 requirements 
we may adopt? Have circumstances changed in the past seven years such 
that we should adopt a different approach here?
5. Cost Recovery
    41. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the 988 Report and 
Order, we propose to require that all covered text providers bear their 
own costs to implement text-to-988 capability to the Lifeline 10-digit 
number. As with call routing to 988, we do not anticipate any shared 
industry costs are necessary to implement text-to-988, in contrast to 
previous non-988 numbering proceedings where the Commission established 
a cost recovery mechanism. As proposed, costs to support text-to-988 
would be borne by each provider, specific to the solutions each has 
adopted to route texts to 988 ultimately to the Lifeline's current toll 
free access number, presently 1-800-273-8255 (TALK). We seek comment on 
this proposal.
    42. We believe this approach promotes efficiency in implementation 
and avoids unnecessary administrative costs. Section 251(e)(2) of the 
Act states that ``[t]he cost of establishing telecommunications 
numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be 
borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral 
basis.'' The Commission typically applies cost recovery mechanisms in 
situations involving some type of numbering administration arrangement, 
such as when the Commission hires a third party to develop a database 
for industry use, to ensure that the statutory cost neutrality 
requirements are met. Here, as with implementation of voice calls to 
988, circumstances do not require establishment of a numbering 
administration arrangement as there will not be shared costs. 
Therefore, we believe the section 251(e)(2) requirements do not apply. 
Furthermore, even if section 251(e)(2) applies, we believe it is 
satisfied if we require each provider to bear its own costs because 
each provider's costs will be proportional to the size and quality of 
its network. We seek comment on this analysis.
6. Bounce-Back Messages
    43. We seek comment on whether and in what circumstances to require 
covered text providers to send automatic bounce-back messages where 
text-to-988 service is unavailable. Throughout the ongoing roll-out of 
text-to-911 services across the U.S., the Commission has required 
covered text providers to send an automatic reply, or bounce-back, text 
message when a consumer attempts to send a text message to a PSAP by 
means of the 3-digit code ``911'' and the covered text provider cannot 
deliver the text because (1) the consumer is located in an area where 
text-to-911 is not available, or (2) the covered text provider either 
does not support text-to-911 generally or does not support it in the 
particular area at the time of the consumer's attempted text. Unlike in 
the text-to-911 context, where availability varies by geography and is 
based on whether the local PSAP can receive texts, our proposals herein 
would require covered text providers to support nationwide texting to 
the Lifeline via the 988 3-digit code on a uniform nationwide deadline. 
If we were to adopt our proposal, should we nonetheless require bounce-
back messages? If so, when and under what circumstances? Should we 
require covered text providers to make available bounce-back messages 
sooner than we require implementation of text-to-988? Would requiring 
bounce-back messages be appropriate if we adopt a uniform nationwide 
deadline for text-to-988 capability later than July 16, 2022--the 
uniform nationwide deadline for covered providers to support calls to 
988? Would requiring bounce-back messages be appropriate if we adopt 
exemptions or extensions for some providers?
    44. We seek comment on the potential benefits and costs of a 
bounce-back requirement. In the text-to-911 context, the Commission 
determined that ``there is a clear benefit and present need for persons 
who attempt to send emergency text messages to know immediately if 
their text cannot be delivered to the proper authorities,'' noting that 
feedback where text-to-911 is not available may be lifesaving by 
directing a person to seek out an alternative means of communicating 
with emergency services. Is that the case here as well? Because some 
individuals with disabilities may rely exclusively on texting for 
communicating, are there unique benefits of a bounce-back requirement 
for these individuals? Since the Commission designated 988 as the 3-
digit dialing code to access the Lifeline, efforts have been underway 
to educate the public about using this 3-digit code to reach help by 
telephone in times of mental health crisis, including its availability 
for routing voice calls to the Lifeline by July 16, 2022. In the 
absence of a bounce-back, might such advertising confuse the public 
about the availability of texting to 988? Would an automated bounce-
back help to prevent such confusion? Are there other advantages to 
requiring covered text providers to send bounce-back messages for 
attempts to text 988 where service is unavailable? Are any providers 
included under the proposed ``covered text providers'' definition 
currently sending bounce-back messages to texts sent to 988?
    45. What are the costs of requiring a bounce-back message? What 
work or upgrades would be necessary for text service providers to 
implement an automatic bounce-back reply? Given that covered text 
providers must provide a bounce-back in circumstances in which text-to-
911 is unavailable, would adding a comparable bounce-back message for 
988 be easier than if that existing infrastructure were not in place? 
Would requiring text service providers to build bounce-back 
capabilities deter resources from more rapid deployment of text-to-988?
    46. We seek comment on how requiring bounce-back messages may 
impact the public's ability to seek help from the Lifeline in times of 
mental crisis. What are the potential benefits to receiving an 
automatic bounce-back message when text-to-988 service is unavailable? 
Are there any drawbacks to the public of requiring covered text 
providers to send bounce-back messages when text-to-988 is not 
available? One commenter contends that if at-risk texters receive a 
bounce-back message regarding the unavailability of services, ``the 
risks of disengagement and adverse outcomes increase.'' Do commenters 
agree with the assessment that an automatic bounce-back message will 
negatively impact individuals seeking help during a crisis? Would a 
bounce-back message have the effect of making the sender more 
discouraged, such that it that could increase, not decrease, the 
likelihood of suicide? Alternatively, if there is no automatic reply, 
and the sender is left wondering whether the Lifeline received the text 
message, would that uncertainty also increase sender's likelihood of 
suicide? We seek comment on whether the benefits of receiving an 
automatic bounce-back message outweigh the potential risk of 
disengagement.
    47. If we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we seek comment 
on the specific requirement we should adopt. To align with the scope of 
the proposed outer bound text-to-988 capability requirements, we 
propose that if we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we would 
require all covered text providers to provide automatic bounce-back 
messages to text messages, as defined by our outer bound

[[Page 31412]]

proposal herein, sent to 988 where text-to-988 service is unavailable. 
We seek comment on this approach. Are there unique considerations for 
different technologies within the outer bound scope of text message 
that we should consider under our bounce-back message proposal, 
including such impact on technical implementation or costs? Should we 
consider requiring covered text providers to send automatic bounce-back 
messages in reply to messages outside the scope of the outer bound 
definition? Are there additional text or chat service providers that 
offer services beyond the proposed outer bound definition that we 
should include within the scope of our proposed bounce-back 
requirement? Should we limit any bounce-back requirement to covered 
text providers, as proposed, or should the requirement sweep more 
broadly? CTIA asserts that text-to-988 implementation should be 
consistent with existing SMS capabilities. Should any bounce-back 
requirement we may explore likewise remain consistent with SMS? Is 
sending a bounce-back message in response to texts to 988 feasible on 
legacy SMS systems? We seek comment on the impact including other text 
or chat service providers, or other forms of messages, may have on the 
implementation costs, technical feasibility, and timeframe for our 
proposed bounce-back message requirements.
    48. Should we adopt a bounce-back requirement, we seek comment on 
whether and how to expand on the circumstances in which a covered text 
provider must provide a bounce-back message due to unavailability of 
text-to-988. In the text-to-911 context, when a customer is roaming 
away from his or her ``home network'' (i.e., the network of the 
customer's mobile carrier), the CMRS provider operating the customer's 
home network is nonetheless responsible for providing a bounce-back 
message when required; and the provider operating the network on which 
the customer is roaming must not impede the bounce-back response by the 
home network operator. We seek comment on adopting a similar 
requirement here. Additionally, we anticipate that there may be 
circumstances in which the Lifeline is unable to receive and respond to 
texts, including where demand may exceed its capacity to respond. In 
instances amounting essentially to a ``busy signal'' for text delivery, 
are covered text providers capable of determining that the text cannot 
be delivered to 988? Would covered text providers be able to determine 
if a text to 988 is undeliverable due to the Lifeline's inability, 
whether temporary or sustained, to receive and respond to the texts? Or 
should we establish a mechanism whereby the Lifeline may inform 
providers of a temporary suspension of text-to-988 service, and should 
the bounce-back requirement apply until the suspension is lifted? 
Lastly, we seek comment on considerations, either within the control of 
the covered text provider or the Lifeline's administrators, in which a 
message from an individual in crisis attempting to reach 988 may not be 
delivered, and therefore may benefit from receipt of a bounce-back 
message directing the individual to contact 988 by alternative means. 
Are there additional circumstances where we should require covered text 
providers to send bounce-back messages in response to 988 texts?
    49. If we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we propose to 
adopt the same exceptions to our bounce-back notification requirement 
for text-to-988 as currently exist for the Commission's text-to-911 
rules. If we adopt that same approach, a covered text provider would 
not be required to provide an automatic bounce-back message when: (1) 
Transmission of the text message is not controlled by the provider; (2) 
a consumer is attempting to text 988, through a text messaging 
application that requires CMRS service, from a non-service initialized 
handset; (3) the text-to-988 message cannot be delivered due to a 
failure in the Lifeline's routing network that has not been reported to 
the provider; or (4) a consumer is attempting to text 988 through a 
device that is incapable of sending texts via 3-digit codes, provided 
that the software for the device cannot be upgraded over the air to 
allow text-to-988. We seek comment on this approach. Are there other 
situations where a covered text provider should not be required to send 
bounce-back messages to consumers attempting to text to 988? 
Furthermore, we seek comment on the circumstances in which the provider 
of a pre-installed or downloaded interconnected text application would 
be considered to have ``control'' over the transmission of text 
messages for the purposes of any requirements we adopt. If a user or 
third party modifies or manipulates the application after it is 
installed or downloaded so that it no longer supports bounce-back 
messaging, should the application provider be presumed not to have 
control?
    50. If we adopt a bounce-back requirement, should we specify or 
provide guidance regarding the content of the bounce-back message, and 
if so, what should we specify or encourage? Similar to automatic 
messages sent in response to undeliverable texts to 911, we propose 
that any bounce-back messages to consumers attempting to text 988 would 
not require all covered text providers to use identical wording for 
their automatic responses. Rather, if we were to adopt a bounce-back 
requirement, we propose that a covered text provider would be deemed to 
have met its obligation so long as the bounce-back message to 988 
includes, at a minimum, two essential points of information: (1) That 
text-to-988 is not available; and (2) identify other means to reach the 
Lifeline, such as by telephone. We seek comment on this approach and on 
alternatives. We seek comment on what role our federal partners and 
non-governmental mental health organizations could play in developing 
best practices regarding the content of messages.
7. Role of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs
    51. Although the Commission has an important role to play in 
expanding access to crisis counseling through its implementation of 
988, SAMHSA and the VA are ultimately responsible for ensuring the 
continued success of these lifesaving resources. As such, we propose to 
direct the Bureau to continue to coordinate the implementation of 988 
with SAMHSA and the VA, including any issues pertaining to the delivery 
of text messages to 988.
    52. We seek comment on this proposal. How we can best support the 
work of our federal partners in administering the Lifeline and Veterans 
Crisis Line? We recognize that many commenters have stressed the 
importance of ensuring adequate funding and staffing for the Lifeline 
and the Veterans Crisis Line over the course of this proceeding. 
Although these issues are beyond our jurisdiction, are there unique 
considerations pertaining to staffing, funding, or the availability of 
other resources at the Lifeline or Veterans Crisis Line that we should 
be aware of as we consider adopting rules to require the delivery of 
text messages to 988? How should we account for the possibility that 
text-to-988 may be popular and increase demands on the Lifeline and 
Veterans Crisis Line? What resources will be needed for the Lifeline 
and Veterans Crisis Line to ensure that text-to-988 is a success? How 
should we account for our federal partners' budget cycles? We are 
cognizant of the potential burdens our proposals may impose upon our 
federal partners,

[[Page 31413]]

including personnel, equipment, and resource allocation, and we seek 
comment on the impact the possible implementation solutions may have on 
SAMHSA and the VA when supporting text-to-988 service. To that end, we 
intend to coordinate with SAMHSA and the VA, and we encourage other 
industry stakeholders in the wireless and texting service industry to 
coordinate with these agencies as well. Assuming that our adoption of 
rules implementing text-to-988 capability will require expenditure of 
additional resources by SAMHSA and the VA, are there ways that we can 
structure our rules to minimize the burden on our federal partners? Are 
there any steps we should take to deter misuse of text-to-988, so as to 
limit the unnecessary expenditure of resources by our federal partners? 
Are there any solutions that have been employed in other contexts, such 
as text-to-911, that we or others should adapt here to deter misuse of 
text-to-988?
    53. In addition, we encourage SAMHSA and the VA to coordinate with 
outside organizations that have expertise in providing crisis 
counseling via text message as they develop the infrastructure to 
receive and respond to text messages which may one day be delivered to 
the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line via 988. Many commenters in this 
proceeding have urged collaboration between private entities like the 
Trevor Project and federal agencies providing similar services. We 
therefore seek comment on how to facilitate such coordination across 
federal agencies and the private sector, as we work towards our shared 
goal of ensuring that all Americans have ready access to mental health 
counseling and support services.

C. Legal Authority

    54. We propose concluding that we have the authority to adopt the 
rules proposed and for which we seek comment in this further notice of 
proposed rulemaking under Title III of the Act and the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA). We seek 
comment on these and any other sources of authority available to us. In 
particular, we seek comment on whether, and if so, to what extent, our 
numbering authority under section 251(e) of the Act provides an 
additional source of authority for the rules proposed and for which we 
seek comment in this further notice of proposed rulemaking. Finally, we 
also seek comment on whether we should employ our ancillary authority. 
We note that, in our preliminary review, the National Suicide Hotline 
Designation Act of 2020 does not provide additional support for--nor 
does it hinder--the actions proposed in this further notice of proposed 
rulemaking. We seek comment on these views.
    55. The rules we propose and for which we seek comment in this 
further notice of proposed rulemaking are analogous to those the 
Commission has adopted to facilitate text-to-911 communications, which 
relied, in part, on the Commission's Title III authority over wireless 
carriers, including sections 301, 303, 307, 309, and 316. We propose 
concluding that, with respect to CMRS providers, Title III provides us 
with appropriate authority to require wireless carriers to support 
text-to-988 service and to require delivery of a bounce-back message to 
consumers in cases where delivery of a text to 988 cannot be completed. 
As the Supreme Court has long recognized, Title III grants the 
Commission a ``comprehensive mandate'' regarding regulation of spectrum 
usage, and courts have routinely found that Title III provides the 
Commission with ``broad authority to manage spectrum . . . in the 
public interest.'' As we explain, we believe the rules we propose in 
this further notice of proposed rulemaking are likely to have 
significant public interest benefits. And, the Commission has 
previously found that its Title III licensing authority supported 
adoption of a similar set of obligations in the text-to-911 context. 
Therefore, we believe that with respect to CMRS providers, Title III 
provides sufficient authority here. We note that, following the release 
of the Text-to-911 Order, the Commission released a Declaratory Ruling 
classifying SMS and MMS services as ``information services'' under the 
Act. However, as the Commission explicitly noted in the Declaratory 
Ruling, this determination ``does not affect the general applicability 
of the spectrum allocation and licensing provisions of Title III and 
the Commission's rules'' to SMS and MMS services, nor does it affect 
the specific application of sections 301, 303, 307, 309, and 316 to the 
Commission's text-to-911 rules. We seek comment on this analysis.
    56. With respect to interconnected text messaging service 
providers, we propose to find that the CVAA provides us with authority 
to adopt the proposals in this further notice of proposed rulemaking, 
as some commenters in this proceeding suggest. Congress enacted the 
CVAA to increase the accessibility of modern communications 
technologies to people with disabilities, including access related to 
emergency services, and the Commission relied, in part, on this 
authority when it adopted similar text-to-911 requirements. The CVAA 
provides the Commission with authority to ``achiev[e] equal access to 
emergency services by individuals with disabilities, as a part of the 
migration to a national internet protocol-enabled emergency network.'' 
In particular, the CVAA granted the Commission the authority to adopt 
regulations to implement recommendations proposed by the Emergency 
Access Advisory Committee established by the CVAA, which concern access 
to 911 and NG911 services, and to adopt ``other regulations'' as are 
necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures 
access by persons with disabilities to an IP-enabled emergency services 
network. We tentatively conclude that the CVAA provides authority for 
our proposals because access to 988 is similar to 911 access for the 
purposes of our CVAA authority. We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion. Do commenters agree that access to the Lifeline or Veterans 
Crisis Line through 988 constitute ``access to emergency services'' 
under the CVAA? Do commenters agree that text-to-988 is necessary to 
achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by 
persons with disabilities to an IP-enabled emergency services network? 
More generally, does the CVAA provide us with authority to adopt the 
rules proposed in this further notice of proposed rulemaking?
    57. We seek comment on any other sources of authority available to 
the Commission to adopt the proposals detailed in this further notice 
of proposed rulemaking. In particular, we seek comment on whether our 
section 251(e) authority over numbering provides authority to require 
support for text-to-988 service. Section 251(e)(1) of the Act grants us 
``exclusive jurisdiction over those portions of the North American 
Numbering Plan that pertain to the United States'' and provides that 
numbers must be made ``available on an equitable basis.'' This 
provision gives the Commission ``authority to set policy with respect 
to all facets of numbering administration in the United States.'' The 
Commission found in the 988 Report and Order that section 251(e) 
provides us with the ability to regulate interconnected and one-way 
VoIP providers that make use of numbering resources when they connect 
with the PSTN. We seek comment on whether our numbering authority 
provides an additional, independent basis to adopt rules with respect 
to CMRS providers

[[Page 31414]]

and interconnected text messaging services.
    58. We also seek comment on the Commission's authority to mandate 
location information with text-to-988 service. Section 222 of the 
Communications Act, as amended, provides strong legal protections for 
customer proprietary network information (CPNI), including geolocation 
information. Section 222(d) provides exceptions to allow CPNI and call 
location data to be shared for ``emergency services.'' We seek comment 
on whether this could encompass the transmission of geolocation 
information with 988 calls. Should we choose to require covered text 
providers to include location information with texts to 988, does 
section 222 authorize the disclosure of location information with texts 
to 988? Are there other privacy concerns that we should consider with 
regard to texts to 988?
    59. Finally, we seek comment on whether exercise of our ancillary 
authority would be necessary or appropriate to support any of our 
proposed rules. The Commission relied in part on ancillary authority to 
apply the bounce-back notification requirement to providers of 
interconnected text messaging services when it adopted text-to-911 
requirements. Would a similar finding be appropriate with respect to 
any aspect of our text-to-988 rules?

D. Benefits and Costs of Text-to-988

    60. We expect to find that the benefits of requiring service 
providers to support text-to-988 service will exceed the costs of 
implementation. We seek comment on this proposal, and any specific data 
regarding both the benefits of facilitating access to the Lifeline via 
texts to 988 and on the costs or burdens implementation of text-to-988 
may impose upon covered text providers.
    61. Suicide causes shock, anguish, grief, and guilt among victims' 
families and friends. Suicide attempts exact a similarly heavy toll on 
the community and the victim. The long-lasting damage from mental 
distress and suicide can extend deep into communities. As outlined 
above, we preliminarily believe that enabling text-to-988 service will 
improve access to lifesaving resources for individuals contemplating 
suicide or experiencing mental health crises, especially for members of 
at-risk communities such as young people, LGBTQ, people of color, and 
individuals with disabilities, thereby saving lives. By expanding 
access to counseling, text-to-988 may help break the cycle of pain, 
suffering, and suicide. We seek comment generally on these and other 
important benefits that may follow from increased access to mental 
health resources via texting to 988.
    62. We further seek comment on ways to quantify these benefits. Of 
course, the benefits to individuals who the Lifeline or Veterans Crisis 
Line places on a path to recovery, much less to their families and 
friends, cannot be reduced to dollars and cents. That being said, even 
if text-to-988 service could annually place just one-per-one-thousand 
suicide victims on a path to long-term recovery, the economic gain 
would be $19.2 million in any single year, for a present-value of $78.7 
million over five years and $134.9 million over ten years. In 
estimating benefits, we focus on teens and individuals with 
disabilities, as individuals in these groups are more likely to use a 
text-to-988 capability. Based on the most recent CDC data from 2015-
2019, 11,283 youth (ages 15-19) and an estimated 13,101 individuals who 
are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind or speech disabled committed 
suicide (using an estimated incidence among adults of 6%), or an 
average of more than 2,000 per year for each group. To calculate the 
estimated benefits for a single year, we multiply the annual average by 
0.1% and the VSL (2,000 * 0.001 * $9.6 million = $19.2 million). We 
discount over five years and ten years at a 7% discount rate. We seek 
comment on this analysis.
    63. Our proposed analysis does not examine certain categories of 
benefits. For example, we have not estimated the cost savings from 
medical expenses and loss-of-work avoided through reduced suicides and 
suicide attempts. We also have not estimated the cost savings of 
reduced burdens on PSAPs, police, ambulance, and fire and rescue 
services, which currently respond to some 911 texts that will be routed 
to the Lifeline, where they will be more effectively and efficiently 
de-escalated or otherwise resolved. Moreover, we have not examined the 
benefits of text-to-988 usage by every demographic group. For example, 
smartphone ownership and suicide are particularly common in younger age 
groups. According to the Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and 
Teens, 2019, 53% of children have their own smartphone by age 11, and 
69% have one at age 12. Currently, our estimated benefits analysis 
looks at youth ages 15-19. To accurately estimate these benefits, we 
seek comment on how broadly we should define youth who may text to 988. 
Relatedly, there is the possibility that adults without hearing or 
speech disabilities may rely exclusively on text-to-988 for added 
privacy or convenience, meriting inclusion in our benefit estimates. We 
also seek comment on ways to better assess the long-term impact of 
text-to-988 service. Without longitudinal studies evaluating the long-
term effectiveness of suicide call centers, we cannot pinpoint how many 
suicides text-to-988 will prevent in the long run. Available survey-
based studies, however, reveal call centers can substantially reduce 
suicides during the initial call and follow-up periods. We seek comment 
on the types and magnitudes of these and other benefits not covered in 
this further notice of proposed rulemaking, as well as any overlooked 
categories of costs.
    64. In the Text-to-911 proceeding, the Commission estimated that 
the total cost for covered providers to implement text-to-911 service 
amounted to less than $21 million. The costs of nationwide deployment 
of text-to-911 fell into three categories: CMRS and PSAP system cost 
components; interconnected text providers' software upgrades; and 
bounce-back messaging application alterations and server platform 
modifications. Assuming that all or most of the software and equipment 
necessary to receive and transmit 911 texts will again be needed to 
deploy text-to-988, we expect that the implementation costs for text-
to-988 service will be comparable to the costs for text-to-911 service. 
Using cost estimates from the Text-to-911 proceeding as a model, we 
estimate it will cost $19,024,916 for CMRS providers to implement text-
to-988, $613,275 for interconnected text messaging service providers to 
implement text-to-988, and $7,310,340 for Lifeline to route texts to 
local crisis centers. We convert the estimate for CMRS providers to 
implement text-to-911 service to 2021 dollars by multiplying by a 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor of 1.16, then discounting over five 
years at a 7% discount rate. Similarly, we convert the estimate for 
interconnected text messaging providers to implement text-to-911 
service into 2021 dollars by using a CPI factor of 1.105. To soberly 
assess Lifeline capability, we assume that 100% of Lifeline call 
centers may require SMS upgrades and thus multiply PSAP software 
estimates by 2.22. To estimate the costs to equip the more than 180 
Lifeline crisis centers, we calculate an average cost based on an 
estimated per PSAP cost of $40,613 (=($263,277,595 + $12,891,283)/
6,800), for a total of $7,310,340 (=180 * $40,613). Therefore, we 
preliminarily estimate that total costs for implementing text-to-988 
will be approximately $27 million. We seek

[[Page 31415]]

comment on this analysis, including our preliminary assumption that 
text-to-911 software and equipment can be leveraged for texting to 988. 
Do commenters agree with CTIA that there are ``significant technical 
and policy differences'' between 988 and 911 service, and if so, how 
might those differences impact our evaluation? Furthermore, we seek 
comment on whether cost estimates for PSAPs from the Text-to-911 
proceeding reflect an appropriate estimate for costs to the Lifeline or 
Veterans Crisis Line. Are there other costs borne by the Lifeline or 
Veterans Crisis Line needed to implement text-to-988 service?
    65. We preliminarily assume that some costs may be streamlined or 
reduced due to the previous implementation of text-to-911, which may be 
leveraged to facilitate text-to-988 capability and seek comment on this 
assumption. As a result, we anticipate that costs for covered text 
providers to implement text-to-988 may be less than what we estimate 
above and seek comment on this finding. We further seek comment on what 
extent covered text providers may rely upon existing text-to-911 
services and how to quantify the costs needed to upgrade such systems 
to support text-to-988.
    66. Deterring suicide has benefits that simply cannot be reduced to 
numbers--saving lives has value beyond measure. While recognizing this 
fact, to illustrate how the benefits of our proposal relate to the more 
aptly quantified costs, we attempt to estimate the quantifiable value 
of suicide prevention using a measure of collective willingness to pay. 
We propose calculating that the level of suicide prevention needed to 
generate benefits exceeding our preliminary estimate of $27 million in 
text-to-988 costs is a total of four suicides avoided over five years. 
Specifically, the level of teen suicide prevention needed to generate 
benefits exceeding $27 million is one per 2,821, and the level of 
suicide prevention among individuals with disabilities to generate 
benefits exceeding $27 million is one per 3,275. Even assuming that 
text-to-988 prevented no suicides in its inaugural year as the service 
rolled out but prevented one suicide in each of the ensuing four years, 
measured in terms of the public's willingness to pay for that mortality 
reduction, the present value of the benefit would be $30.39 million, 
more than three million dollars greater than the total cost. The 
present value would be an uneven stream of payments of $9.6 million ($0 
in Year 1 + $9.6 million per year in Year 2 through Year 5) at a 7% 
discount rate. We seek comment on our analysis.
    67. Using break-even points and highly attainable suicide 
reductions that are well below those suggested by survey studies, we 
estimate that the benefits of text-to-988 will far exceed the costs. 
Pooling teenagers and individuals with disabilities, we estimate that 
text-to-988 would need to prevent one suicide out of every six thousand 
in order to break-even in the first five years of deployment. Slightly 
raising the bar to preventing one suicide per one thousand, we further 
estimate that the more than $157.5 million estimated benefit from 
modestly reducing suicides in two vulnerable populations far exceeds 
the text-to-988 deployment costs of $19.6 million incurred by CMRS and 
interconnected text providers. Even if sizable Lifeline deployment 
costs are added, increasing estimated total cost to nearly $27 million, 
the estimated benefits of text-to-988 remain greater by a multiple of 
nearly six. Over ten years, the benefits rise to $269.8 million, 
exceeding costs by a multiple of nearly ten. We seek comment on these 
estimates. We also seek comment on the methods and underlying benefits 
and costs estimates, including those submitted by third parties, used 
to arrive at our overall proposed conclusion.

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this 
Implementation of the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2018 
further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM). 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 of proposed 
rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of the further notice of 
proposed rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
further notice of proposed rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on 
requiring CMRS providers and providers of interconnected text messaging 
services that enable consumers to send text messages to, and receive 
text messages from, the PSTN (covered text providers) to enable 
delivery of text messages to 988. The Commission proposes to require 
that covered text providers route 988 text messages to the National 
Suicide Prevention Lifeline's (Lifeline) 10-digit number, currently 1-
800-273-8255 (TALK). The Commission believes these proposed rules will 
expand the availability of mental health and crisis counseling 
resources to Americans who suffer from depressive or suicidal thoughts, 
by allowing individuals in crisis to reach the Lifeline by texting 988.

B. Legal Basis

    3. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
this FNPRM is contained in sections 201, 251, 301, 303, 307, 309, and 
316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 
301, 303, 307, 309, 316.

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 and by the rule revisions on which the 
Notice seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    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 here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United

[[Page 31416]]

States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.
    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.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were 
approximately 571,709 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.
    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.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    8. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    9. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS 
Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the 
applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there 
were 3,117 firms that operated for the entire year. Of that total, 
3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this 
category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of local exchange carriers are small entities.
    10. Incumbent LECs. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under the applicable SBA size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated the 
entire year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers 
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be 
affected by our actions. According to Commission data, one thousand 
three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
reported that they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
this total, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, 
using the SBA's size standard the majority of incumbent LECs can be 
considered small entities.
    11. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs). 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    12. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    13. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. The closest applicable NAICS Code category is 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable size standard under 
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms 
operated for the entire year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. According to internally developed Commission 
data, 359 companies reported that their primary telecommunications 
service activity was the provision of interexchange services. Of this 
total, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees.

[[Page 31417]]

Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
interexchange service providers are small entities.
    14. Local Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Local Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICs code category for 
local resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data from 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an 
estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of local resellers are small entities.
    15. Toll Resellers. The Commission has not developed a definition 
for Toll Resellers. The closest NAICS Code Category is 
Telecommunications Resellers. 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. MVNOs are included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of 
Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 2012 U.S. Census Bureau 
data show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. 
Of that number, 1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these resellers can be considered small entities. 
According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are 
engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of this total, an 
estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small 
entities.
    16. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The applicable SBA size 
standard consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer 
than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can 
be considered small. According to internally developed Commission data, 
284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service 
activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an 
estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities.
    17. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a small business definition specifically for prepaid 
calling card providers. The most appropriate NAICS code-based category 
for defining prepaid calling card providers is Telecommunications 
Resellers. This industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing 
access and network capacity from owners and operators of 
telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless 
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual networks operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under 
the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 
1,341 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority 
of these prepaid calling card providers can be considered small 
entities. According to the Commission's Form 499 Filer Database, 86 
active companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
prepaid calling cards. The Commission does not have data regarding how 
many of these companies have 1,500 or fewer employees, however, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of the 86 active prepaid calling 
card providers that may be affected by these rules are likely small 
entities.
    18. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 
Neither the SBA nor the Commission has developed a size standard 
specifically applicable to Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. The 
closest applicable is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite), which the SBA small business size standard is such a 
business is small if it 1,500 persons or less. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Carriers and Service 
Providers are small entities.
    19. According to internally developed Commission data for all 
classes of Wireless Service Providers, there are 970 carriers that 
reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of 
this total, an estimated 815 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 155 
have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate 
that the majority of Wireless Carriers and Service Providers can be 
considered small.
    20. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in 
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a 
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically 
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, 
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming 
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. 
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite

[[Page 31418]]

systems, for transmission to viewers.'' The SBA size standard for this 
industry establishes as small any company in this category with annual 
receipts less than $41.5 million. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012, 367 firms operated for the entire year. Of that number, 319 firms 
operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million a year and 48 
firms operated with annual receipts of $25 million or more. Based on 
this data, the Commission estimates that a majority of firms in this 
industry are small.
    21. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has also developed its own small business size standards, for the 
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 
nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are 4,600 active cable 
systems in the United States. Of this total, all but five cable 
operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 
3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 
have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under 
this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems are small 
entities.
    22. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' As of 2019, there were 
approximately 48,646,056 basic cable video subscribers in the United 
States. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 486,460 subscribers 
shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined 
with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed 
$250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that 
all but five cable operators are small entities under this size 
standard. We note that the Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we 
are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators 
under the definition in the Communications Act.
    23. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.
    24. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.
    25. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments 
that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small.
    26. Software Publishers. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in computer software publishing or publishing and 
reproduction. Establishments in this industry carry out operations 
necessary for producing and distributing computer software, such as 
designing, providing documentation, assisting in installation, and 
providing support services to software purchasers. These establishments 
may design, develop, and publish, or publish only. The SBA has 
established a size standard for this industry of annual receipts of 
$41.5 million or less per year. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates 
that 5,079 firms operated for the entire year. Of that number 4,691 
firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million and 166 firms had 
annual receipts of $25,000,000 to $49,999,999. Based on this data, we 
conclude that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
    27. Internet Service Providers (Broadband). Broadband internet 
service providers include wired (e.g., cable, DSL) and VoIP service 
providers using their own operated wired telecommunications 
infrastructure fall in the category of Wired Telecommunication 
Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or 
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. The SBA size 
standard for this category classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 
there were 3,117 firms that operated

[[Page 31419]]

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Consequently, under this size standard the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small.
    28. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). Internet access 
service providers such as Dial-up internet service providers, VoIP 
service providers using client-supplied telecommunications connections 
and internet service providers using client-supplied telecommunications 
connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs) fall in the category of All Other 
Telecommunications. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for All Other Telecommunications which consists of all such 
firms with gross annual receipts of $35 million or less. For this 
category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 
1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
under this size standard a majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.
    29. All Other Information Services. The U.S. Census Bureau has 
determined that this category ``comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in providing other information services (except news 
syndicates, libraries, archives, internet publishing and broadcasting, 
and Web search portals).'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category, which consists of all such firms with 
annual receipts of $30 million or less. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that there were 512 firms that operated for the entire year. 
Of those firms, a total of 498 had annual receipts less than $25 
million and 7 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999. 
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small 
entities that may be affected by our action.

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

    30. The FNPRM proposes and seeks comment on rules to require 
covered text providers to support text messaging to 988. It tentatively 
concludes that text-to-988 functionality will greatly improve consumer 
access to the Lifeline, particularly for at-risk populations, and 
thereby save lives. The proposed rules would require CMRS providers and 
interconnected text messaging service providers to route texts sent to 
988 to the 10-digit Lifeline number, presently 1-800-273-8255 (TALK). 
The FNPRM proposes (1) establishing a definition that sets the outer 
bound of text messages sent to 988 that covered text providers may be 
required to support; and (2) directing the Wireline Competition Bureau 
(Bureau) to identify text formats within the scope of that definition 
that the Lifeline can receive and thus covered text providers must 
support by routing to the 10-digit Lifeline number. The FNPRM seeks 
comment on this proposal. The Commission preliminarily believes that 
applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context is 
necessary to alleviate potential consumer confusion from adopting 
different rules for different covered text providers. The Commission 
proposes that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with 
the rules will not unduly burden small entities.

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

    31. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
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.
    32. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment from all entities, 
including small entities, regarding the impact of these proposed rules 
on small entities. The Commission seeks comment on the impact, cost or 
otherwise, that requiring text messaging to 988 capability will impose 
on regional and rural carriers and small businesses. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether to adopt any exemptions for small 
businesses and if so, under what circumstances. The Commission asks and 
will consider alternatives to the proposals and on alternative ways of 
implementing the proposals.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    33. None.

III. Procedural Matters

    34. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding 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.
    35. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and 
actions considered in this FNPRM. Written public comments are requested 
on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and 
must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM. The 
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

[[Page 31420]]

    36. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] 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, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OS 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    37. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
    38. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document may 
contain 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, we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    39. Contact Person. For further information about this rulemaking 
proceeding, please contact Michelle Sclater, Competition Policy 
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0388 or 
[email protected].

IV. Ordering Clauses

    40. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 201, 251, 301, 303, 307, 
309, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
201, 251, 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, that the FNPRM in WC Docket No. 18-
336 is adopted.
    41. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by Communications Equality Advocates is granted in part to the 
extent described herein.
    42. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this FNPRM, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 52

    Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--NUMBERING

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 201-205, 207-209, 
218, 225-227, 251-252, 271, 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332, unless 
otherwise noted.

Subpart E--Universal Dialing Code for National Suicide Prevention 
and Mental Health Crisis Hotline System

0
2. Add Sec.  52.201 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  52.201  Texting to the National Suicide Prevention and Mental 
Health Crisis Hotline.

    (a) Support for 988 text message service. Beginning [[DATE]], all 
covered text providers must have the capability to route a covered 988 
text message to the current toll free access number for the National 
Suicide Prevention Lifeline, presently 1-800-273-8255 (TALK).
    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
    988 text message. (i) Means a message consisting of text, images, 
sounds, or other information that is transmitted to or from a device 
that is identified as the receiving or transmitting device by means of 
a 10-digit telephone number, N11 service code, or 988;
    (ii) Includes a SMS message and a MMS message; and
    (iii) Does not include--
    (A) A real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or
    (B) A message sent over an IP-enabled messaging service to another 
user of the same messaging service, except a message described in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    Covered 988 text message means a 988 text message in SMS format and 
any other format that the Wireline Competition Bureau has determined 
must be supported by covered text providers.
    Covered text provider shall mean all Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services (CMRS) providers and providers of interconnected text 
messaging services that enable consumers to send text messages to and 
receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. 
telephone numbers, including through the use of applications downloaded 
or otherwise installed on mobile phones.
    Multimedia message service (MMS) shall have the same definition as 
the term in Sec.  64.1600(k) of the Commission's rules.
    Short message service (SMS) shall have the same definition as the 
term in Sec.  64.1600(m) of the Commission's rules.

[FR Doc. 2021-09855 Filed 6-9-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P