Every Federal agency, including the NCUA, is required by law to adjust its maximum CMP amounts each year to account for inflation. Prior to this being an annual requirement, agencies were required to adjust their CMPs at least once every four years. The previous four-year requirement stemmed from the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 1 which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. 2

The current annual requirement stems from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, 3 which contains the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 amendments). 4 This legislation provided for an initial “catch-up” adjustment of CMPs in 2016, followed by annual adjustments. The catch-up adjustment reset CMP maximum amounts by setting aside the inflation adjustments that agencies made in prior years and instead calculated inflation with reference to the year when each CMP was enacted or last modified by Congress. Agencies were required to publish their catch-up adjustments in an interim final rule by July 1, 2016, and make them effective by August 1, 2016. 5 The NCUA complied with these requirements in a June 2016 interim final rule, followed by a November 2016 final rule to confirm the adjustments as final. 6

The 2015 amendments also specified how agencies must conduct annual inflation adjustments after the 2016 catch-up adjustment. Following the catch-up adjustment, agencies must make the required adjustments and publish them in the Federal Register by January 15 each year. 7 For 2017, the NCUA issued an interim final rule on January 6, 2017, 8 followed by a final rule issued on June 23, 2017. 9 For 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 the NCUA issued a final rule in each year to satisfy the agency's annual requirements. 10 This final rule satisfies the agency's requirement for the 2022 annual adjustment.

The law provides that the adjustments shall be made notwithstanding the section of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that requires prior notice and public comment for agency rulemaking. 11 The 2015 amendments also specify that each CMP maximum must be increased by the percentage by which the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U)  12 for October of the year immediately preceding the year the adjustment is made exceeds the CPI-U for October of the prior year. 13 Thus, for the adjustment to be made in 2022, an agency must compare the October 2020 and October 2021 CPI-U figures.

An annual adjustment under the 2015 amendments is not required if a CMP has been amended in the preceding 12 months pursuant to other authority. Specifically, the statute provides that an agency is not required to make an annual adjustment to a CMP if in the preceding 12 months it has been increased by an amount greater than the annual adjustment required by the 2015 amendments. 14 The NCUA did not make any adjustments in the preceding 12 months pursuant to other authority. Therefore, this rulemaking adjusts the NCUA's CMPs pursuant to the 2015 amendments.

This section applies the statutory requirements and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance to the NCUA's CMPs and sets forth the Board's calculation of the 2022 adjustments.

The 2015 amendments directed OMB to issue guidance to agencies on implementing the inflation adjustments. 15 OMB is required to issue its guidance each December and, with respect to the 2022 annual adjustment, did so on December 15, 2021. 16 For 2022, Federal agencies must adjust the maximum amounts of their CMPs by the percentage by which the October 2021 CPI-U (276.589) exceeds the October 2020 CPI-U (260.388). The resulting increase can be expressed as an inflation multiplier (1.06222) to apply to each current CMP maximum amount to determine the adjusted maximum. The OMB guidance also addresses rulemaking procedures and agency reporting and oversight requirements for CMPs. 17

The table below presents the adjustment calculations. The current maximums are found at 12 CFR 747.1001, as adjusted by the final rule that the Board approved in January 2021. This amount is multiplied by the inflation multiplier to calculate the new maximum in the far-right column. Only these adjusted maximum amounts, and not the calculations, will be codified at 12 CFR 747.1001 under this final rule. The adjusted amounts will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register and can be applied to violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015, the date the 2015 amendments were enacted. 18

In the 2015 amendments, Congress provided that agencies shall make the required inflation adjustments in 2017 and subsequent years notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553, 20 which generally requires agencies to follow notice-and-comment procedures in rulemaking and to make rules effective no sooner than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . The 2015 amendments provide a clear exception to these requirements. 21 In addition, as an independent basis, the Board finds that notice-and-comment procedures would be impracticable and unnecessary under the APA because of the largely ministerial and technical nature of the rule, which affords agencies limited discretion in promulgating the rule, and the statutory deadline for making the adjustments. 22 In these circumstances, the Board finds good cause to issue a final rule without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking or soliciting public comments. The Board also finds good cause to make the final rule effective upon publication because of the statutory deadline. Accordingly, this final rule is issued without prior notice and comment and will become effective immediately upon publication.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that when an agency issues a proposed rule or a final rule pursuant to the APA  23 or another law, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis that meets the requirements of the RFA and publish such analysis in the Federal Register . 24 Specifically, the RFA normally requires agencies to describe the impact of a rulemaking on small entities by providing a regulatory impact analysis. For purposes of the RFA, the Board considers federally insured credit unions (FICUs) with assets less than $100 million to be small entities. 25

As discussed previously, consistent with the APA, 26 the Board has determined for good cause that general notice and opportunity for public comment is unnecessary, and therefore the Board is not issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Rules that are exempt from notice and comment procedures are also exempt from the RFA requirements, including conducting a regulatory flexibility analysis, when among other things the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the RFA's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

Nevertheless, the Board notes that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions because it affects only the maximum amounts of CMPs that may be assessed in individual cases, which are not numerous and generally do not involve assessments at the maximum level. In addition, several of the CMPs are limited to a percentage of a credit union's assets. Finally, in assessing CMPs, the Board generally must consider a party's financial resources. 27 Because this final rule will affect few, if any, small credit unions, the Board certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden. 28 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. This final rule adjusts the maximum amounts of certain CMPs that the Board may assess against individuals, entities, or credit unions but does not require any reporting or recordkeeping. Therefore, this final rule will not create new paperwork burdens or modify any existing paperwork burdens.

Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, the NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the Executive order. This final rule adjusts the maximum amounts of certain CMPs that the Board may assess against individuals, entities, and federally insured credit unions, including state-chartered credit unions. However, the final rule does not create any new authority or alter the underlying statutory authorities that enable the Board to assess CMPs. Accordingly, this final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The Board has determined that this final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the Executive order.

The Board has determined that this final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999. 29

For purposes of the Congressional Review Act, 30 the OMB makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule. If OMB deems a rule to be a “major rule,” the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication.

The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions, or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 31

For the same reasons set forth above, the Board is adopting the final rule without the delayed effective date generally prescribed under the Congressional Review Act. The delayed effective date required by the Congressional Review Act does not apply to any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 32

The Board believes this final rule is not a major rule. As required by the Congressional Review Act, the Board will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to OMB, Congress, and the Government Accountability Office for review.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Board amends 12 CFR part 747 as follows:

On October 16, 2020, SBA published a final rule revising the regulations pertaining to the 8(a) BD and size programs in order to further reduce unnecessary or excessive burdens on small businesses and to more clearly delineate SBA's intent in certain regulations (85 FR 66146). This is the fifth set of corrections. The first set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2020 (85 FR 72916). The second set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2021 (86 FR 2957). The third set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2021 (86 FR 10732). The fourth set of corrections was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2021 (86 FR 38538). This document augments those corrections.

It is well established that business concerns are not affiliates of joint ventures of which they are members for size purposes. However, SBA regulations have long provided that when determining a concern's size SBA will consider all revenue in whatever form received or accrued from whatever source. Therefore, since 2004 SBA regulations have required a joint venture partner to include its proportionate share of joint venture receipts and employees in its own receipts and employee count, respectively. (69 FR 29192). The final rule of October 16, 2020, revised § 121.103(h) to clarify how a joint venture partner must calculate its proportionate share of joint venture receipts and employees for purposes of determining its own size status. Specifically, the final rule provided that the joint venture partner must include its percentage share of joint venture receipts and employees in its own receipts or employees. The appropriate percentage share is the same percentage figure as the percentage figure corresponding to the joint venture partner's share of work performed by the joint venture. For employee-based size standards, the appropriate way to apportion individuals employed by the joint venture is the same percentage of employees as the joint venture partner's percentage ownership share in the joint venture, after first subtracting any joint venture employee already accounted for in the employee count of one of the partners.

It has come to SBA's attention that some have misinterpreted the intent of the final rule. Specifically, because the regulations no longer allow joint ventures to be populated with individuals intended to perform small business set-aside contracts awarded to the joint venture, some have reasoned that a joint venture populated with its own separate contracting-performing employees does not qualify as a joint venture for all SBA program purposes. From this logic it ostensibly follows that a joint venture partner need not include in its own receipts its proportionate share of receipts and employees from populated joint ventures. This was not SBA's intent.

When SBA revised its regulations to 2016 to prohibit populated joint ventures on small business contracts, it did so in response to programmatic concerns that allowing populated joint ventures between a mentor and its protégé would not ensure that the protégé firm and its employees benefit by developing new expertise, experience, and past performance. (81 FR 48558). As SBA explained, if the individuals hired by the joint venture to perform the work under the contract did not come from the protégé firm, there is no guarantee that they would ultimately end up working for the protégé firm after the contract is completed. In such a case, the protégé firm would have gained nothing out of that contract. The protégé itself did not perform work under the contract and the individual employees who performed work did not at any point work for the protégé firm. Additionally, SBA believed that requiring joint ventures to be unpopulated ensures that the lead small business partner to the joint venture will meet its performance of work requirements and will actually benefit from the joint venture arrangement. This is especially important for joint ventures between a mentor and its protégé as well as joint ventures to perform socio-economic set-aside contracts, where the lead joint venture partner has the necessary size or socio-economic status and the non-lead partner does not. Nothing, however, in the final rule or the 2016 rulemaking signaled a change in policy concerning the treatment of receipts and employees from populated joint ventures for purposes of determining a joint venture partner's size. SBA never intended to change how revenues earned by a joint venture should be counted for size purposes. As noted above, a joint venture partner of any kind must include its proportionate share of joint venture receipts and employees in its own receipts and employee count to ensure that all its revenues and employees are properly considered in determining that partner's size. In this context it is irrelevant whether the joint venture partner's proportionate share of receipts and employees are from populated or unpopulated joint ventures. Thus, while populated joint ventures are no longer eligible to submit offers for small business contracts, receipts and employees from populated joint ventures are still attributable to the underlying joint venture partners for size purposes. This rule corrects the above misconception by clarifying that a concern must include in its receipts and employee count its proportionate share of joint venture receipts and joint venture employees, respectively, regardless of whether the joint venture is populated or unpopulated.

Accordingly, 13 CFR part 121 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-11-01, Amendment 39-19289 (83 FR 23778, May 23, 2018), (AD 2018-11-01). AD 2018-11-01 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332L2 and EC225LP helicopters with an extended aluminum splice installed on frame 5295, except helicopters with steel splice kit part number 332A08-2649-3072 installed. AD 2018-11-01 required installing a cut-out for the LH and RH rail support junction profiles and repetitively inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. AD 2018-11-01 was prompted by reports of cracks on frame 5295 and on splices installed to prevent those cracks. The FAA issued AD 2018-11-01 to address a crack in frame 5295, which if not detected and corrected, could lead to loss of structural integrity of the helicopter frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2021 (86 FR 58600). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2018-11-01 and require a modification for replacing aluminum splices with steel splices on frame 5295 if cracking is found. The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2021-0075, dated March 16, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0075), which supersedes EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E, dated April 25, 2014 (EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union.

EASA advises that since EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E was issued, Airbus Helicopters developed MOD 0728463, available for helicopters in service through the applicable modification service bulletin, providing instructions to replace aluminum splices with steel splices on frame 5295. Airbus Helicopters also issued the applicable inspection alert service bulletins, as defined in EASA AD 2021-0075. Accordingly, EASA AD 2021-0075 retains the requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2014-0098-E, which is superseded, and requires a modification, replacing aluminum splices with steel splices on helicopters on which any cracked aluminum splice has been detected. EASA AD 2021-0075 also advises that the modification is terminating action for the repetitive inspections.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed the following Airbus Helicopters service information.

• Alert Service Bulletins Nos. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 1; and EC225-05A038, Revision 1; both dated February 9, 2021; which specify procedures for, among other actions, installing a cut-out for the LH and RH rail support junction profiles and inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack. These documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.

• Service Bulletins Nos. AS332-53.01.97, Revision 0; and EC225-53-061, Revision 0; both dated February 9, 2021; which specify procedures for modifying the helicopter by replacing the aluminum LH and RH splices with steel splices under the plates and the brackets of the main gear box (MGB) bars. The modification includes taking reference readings of the brackets of the MGB bars, removing the MGB brackets and plates, removing the aluminum splices and inspecting the joggling areas for scratches or other damage, inspecting frame 5295 for cracking (including a dye penetrant inspection if the inspection results are not conclusive), identifying the current measurements (values) of the rivet and attachment plate holes for installation of the steel splice (including determining the values of the rivet holes and attachment plate holes on frame 5295 with a calibrated pad and determining the elongations of the holes and the lengths of the straps), modifying the door hinge rail brackets on the LH and RH sides, and installing the steel splices. These documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Helicopters (now Airbus Helicopters) Service Bulletin No. 53-003, Revision 4, for Model EC225LP helicopters and Service Bulletin No. 53.01.52, Revision 5, for Model AS332L2 helicopters, both dated July 23, 2010. The service bulletins specify procedures to reinforce frame 5295 by installing a new titanium plate underneath the fitting and a new widened aluminum splice below the upper corner of the door.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Service Bulletin No. 05-019, Revision 4, dated September 22, 2014, for Model EC225 LP helicopters. This service information specifies procedures for cutting out the junction profiles.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletins Nos. AS332-05.00.97, Revision 0; and EC225-05A038, Revision 0; both dated April 15, 2014; which specify procedures for, among other actions, installing a cut-out for the LH and RH rail support junction profiles and inspecting splices, frame 5295, and related equipment for a crack.

Since AD 2018-11-01 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been redesignated in this AD, as listed in the following table:

EASA AD 2021-0075 requires contacting Airbus Helicopters for approved repair instructions if any crack is found during an inspection. This AD would not require that action.

The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 38 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-21-01, Amendment 39-21274 (85 FR 63440, October 8, 2020) (AD 2020-21-01). AD 2020-21-01 applied to certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, and SA-365N1 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2021 (86 FR 54139). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require modifying the MGB T/R drive flange installation, and also proposed to include additional helicopters in the applicability for the required actions. The NPRM was prompted by several reported occurrences of loss of tightening torque of the Shur-Lok nut, which serves as a retainer of the MGB T/R drive flange.

EASA AD 2020-0287, dated December 21, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0287), was issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for certain AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, SA 365 C1, SA 365 C2, SA 365 C3, SA 365 N and SA 365 N1 helicopters; and all EC 155 B and EC 155 B1 helicopters. Model SA 365 C3 helicopters are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those helicopters in the applicability. EASA AD 2020-0287 supersedes EASA AD 2020-0212, dated October 5, 2020, which required modification of the MGB T/R drive flange installation. EASA advises of reported occurrences of loss of tightening torque of the Shur-Lok nut, which serves as a retainer of the T/R drive flange of the MGB. EASA also advises of subsequent investigation that determined that these occurrences were the result of failure of the Shur-Lok nut locking function, which is normally ensured by two antirotation tabs engaged into two slots at the end of the MGB output shaft pinion. EASA states this condition could lead to the loosening of the Shur-Lok nut and disengagement of the Shur-Lok nut threads, possibly resulting in reduction of T/R drive control, rear transmission vibrations, and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

Accordingly, EASA AD 2020-0287 retains the modification of the MGB T/R drive flange installation. EASA AD 2020-0287 also includes additional helicopters in the applicability for the required actions (Model SA-365C1, SA-365C2, and SA-365N helicopters on which Airbus Helicopters modification 0763B64 has been embodied; and Model EC 155B and EC155B1 helicopters without modification 0763B64 embodied).

The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were an individual who made a statement about the applicability; an individual who expressed support and favor for the NPRM; and an anonymous commenter, who had a question about the applicability. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

An individual stated the opinion that all helicopters should be subject to the same rules, a preference for unity under the law, and that it is unfair to have different rules for different helicopters. An anonymous commenter asked why the NPRM is only applicable to Airbus Helicopters and not other current and modern models of helicopters. The FAA infers that the commenters may be suggesting that this AD should apply to all helicopter models. No further justification was given.

The FAA agrees to clarify the applicability. Each FAA AD has a specific applicability, and this FAA AD reflects the applicability of EASA AD 2020-0287. This AD only addresses the models specified in the EASA AD that are affected by the unsafe condition. Helicopters and the systems that support the design are varied, and because of design variances between manufacturers, may or may not be subject to an unsafe condition. Therefore, in crafting a rule, the FAA specifically works to apply rulemaking only to the models and systems that are affected. Otherwise, the FAA may be creating arbitrary regulations, unnecessary work, and burdensome costs for the operators of the unaffected helicopters. There is no further need to expand the applicability of this AD to other helicopter models due to the likelihood that the type designs are different and therefore not subject to the unsafe condition. If information is received indicating other models are affected by the unsafe condition, the FAA will consider further rulemaking. The FAA has made no changes to this AD.

These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed the following service information.

Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS365-63.00.26, Revision 0, dated July 22, 2020, for Model AS365N helicopters and non FAA-type certificated military Model AS365Fs helicopters; and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. SA365-65.52, Revision 1, dated July 22, 2020, for Model SA-365C1 and SA-365C2 helicopters and non FAA-type certificated Model SA-365C3 helicopters. This service information specifies procedures for modifying the MGB T/R drive flange installation, which include installing a rear (aft) output stop between the T/R drive flange and T/R drive shaft. These documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.

This AD also requires Airbus Helicopters ASB No. AS365-63.00.19, Revision 1, dated January 31, 2019; and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC155-63A013, Revision 1, dated January 31, 2019; which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 12, 2020 (85 FR 63440, October 8, 2020).

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

EASA AD 2020-0287 specifies compliance times of 600 flight hours or a certain time frame (months). However, this AD only requires the compliance time of 600 hours time-in-service.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 53 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

This amendment to part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) amends, suspends, or revokes IFR altitudes governing the operation of all aircraft in flight over a specified route or any portion of that route, as well as the changeover points (COPs) for Federal airways, jet routes, or direct routes as prescribed in part 95.

The specified IFR altitudes, when used in conjunction with the prescribed changeover points for those routes, ensure navigation aid coverage that is adequate for safe flight operations and free of frequency interference. The reasons and circumstances that create the need for this amendment involve matters of flight safety and operational efficiency in the National Airspace System, are related to published aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. In addition, those various reasons or circumstances require making this amendment effective before the next scheduled charting and publication date of the flight information to assure its timely availability to the user. The effective date of this amendment reflects those considerations. In view of the close and immediate relationship between these regulatory changes and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that good cause exists for making the amendment effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, part 95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 95) is amended as follows effective at 0901 UTC, January 27, 2022.

We are adopting an updated Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 60 (December 2021) and amendments to 17 CFR 232.301 (“Rule 301”). The updated Filer Manual is incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Filer Manual contains technical specifications needed for filers to make submissions on EDGAR. Filers must comply with the applicable provisions of the Filer Manual in order to assure the timely acceptance and processing of filings made in electronic format. 1

EDGAR is being updated in Release 21.4, and was previously updated in Release 21.3.1, and corresponding amendments to Volume II of the Filer Manual will be made to reflect these changes, as described below. 2

On April 14, 2016, the Commission adopted rules to implement provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. Rule 15Fk-1(c) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires security-based swap dealers and security-based swap participants (“SBS Entities”) to submit an annual report to the Commission, prepared and signed by the chief compliance officer, containing prescribed information concerning the SBS Entities' compliance programs. 3 Release 21.4 introduces two new submission types for SBS Entities' chief compliance officer to submit the annual compliance report and any subsequent amendments to the report on EDGAR: SBSE-CCO-RPT and SBSE-CCO-RPT/A.

On April 8, 2020, the Commission adopted rule and form amendments that modify the registration, communications, and offering processes for business development companies (“BDCs”) and registered closed-end investment companies (collectively, “funds”) under the Securities Act of 1933, Regulations S-K and S-T, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Offering Reform Rules”). 4

The Offering Reform Rules include new structured data requirements for BDCs, which will be required to use Inline XBRL to tag their financial statements. In addition, all funds that file on Form N-2 will be required to use Inline XBRL to tag Form N-2 cover page information. 5 Funds must also tag information provided in response to Items 3.1, 4.3, 8.2.b, 8.2.d, 8.3.a, 8.3.b, 8.5.b, 8.5.c, 8.5.e, 10.1.a-d, 10.2.a-c, 10.2.e, 10.3, and 10.5 (“specified prospectus disclosures”) that is included in any registration statement or post-effective amendment filed on Form N-2, or for any forms of prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424 under the Securities Act of 1933 that include or amend such information. The Offering Reform Rules also require funds that file a short-form shelf registration statement on Form N-2 (“seasoned issuers”) to use Inline XBRL to tag any specified prospectus disclosures that appear in Exchange Act reports that are incorporated by reference into their registration statement ( e.g., Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, N-CSR).

In conjunction with the Offering Reform Rules, EDGAR will be updated to support the 2021Q4 Closed-End Funds (CEF) Taxonomy, and the EDGAR Filer Manual will be revised to update the submission types that will accept XBRL and to describe certain validations specific to the CEF Taxonomy.

Further, on October 13, 2021, the Commission adopted rules and form amendments to modernize filing fee disclosure and payment methods for operating companies, BDCs, and most registered closed-end funds. 6 Effective January 31, 2022, such filers will be required to disclose their filing fee calculation table(s) and related information in a new filing fee exhibit for most fee bearing forms within the scope of the rules. The new exhibit, which will be titled “EX-FILING FEES,” will initially be filed in an unstructured format. Filing instructions for the new filing fee exhibits are included in Volume II of the Filer Manual with a note to filers that the instructions are effective on January 31, 2022.

Also, the following updates will be made to Volume II of the Filer Manual:

• A validation will be added within EDGAR to ensure that if a filer indicates that certain information can be found on a website URL that is listed in Item 6 of Form ATS-N, the website URL has, in fact, been included. If the filer has not included the website, EDGAR will suspend the filing and send a suspension message to the filer.

• On December 18, 2020, Congress enacted the “Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act” (“HFCAA”), which includes submission and disclosure requirements for registrants that the Commission identifies as having filed an annual report on Forms 20-F, 40-F, 10-K, and N-CSR with an audit report issued by a registered public accounting firm that is located in a foreign jurisdiction and that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) has determined it is unable to inspect or investigate completely because of a position taken by an authority in that jurisdiction. 7 On December 2, 2021, the Commission adopted amendments  8 to finalize interim final rules  9 that revised Forms 20-F, 40-F, 10-K, and N-CSR to implement the disclosure and submission requirements of the HFCAA. The final amendments, among other things, mandated that filers provide certain XBRL information about firms providing audit reports for financial statements included in annual reports filed on Forms 20-F, 40-F, 10-K, and N-CSR for fiscal years ending on or after December 18, 2021, which will begin to be made in early 2022. 10 In order for registrants to comply with the final amendments, EDGAR will be updated to support the latest version of DEI-2021Q4 Taxonomy, and all registrants will be required to use the updated taxonomy, or a subsequently adopted version of the taxonomy, for any annual report filed for a period ended after December 15, 2021.

Release 21.4 also introduces, and Release 21.3.1 introduced, additional changes in EDGAR that do not require corresponding amendments to the Filer Manual. See the “Updates” section of Volume II of the Filer Manual.

Along with the adoption of the updated Filer Manual, we are amending Rule 301 of Regulation S-T to provide for the incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations of the current revisions. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

The updated EDGAR Filer Manual is available at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/filer-information/current-edgar-filer-manual. Typically, the EDGAR Filer Manual is also available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Operating conditions may limit access to the Commission's Public Reference Room.

Because the Filer Manual, the related rule amendments, relate solely to agency procedures or practice and do not substantially alter the rights and obligations of non-agency parties, publication for notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 11 It follows that the amendments do not require analysis under requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act  12 or a report to Congress under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 13

The effective date for the updated Filer Manual and related rule amendments is January 5, 2022. In accordance with the APA, 14 we find that there is good cause to establish an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules. The Commission believes that establishing an effective date less than 30 days after publication of these rules is necessary to coordinate the effectiveness of the updated Filer Manual with the related system upgrades.

We are adopting the amendments to Regulation S-T under the authority in Sections 6, 7, 8, 10, and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15B, 23, and 35A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 16 Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 17 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. 18

In accordance with the foregoing, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

Having previously granted petitions to add 1-BP to the CAA HAP list, this current action is the final step in granting petitioners' request. Per CAA section 112(b)(3)(B), the Administrator “shall add a substance to the list upon a showing by the petitioner or on the Administrator's own determination that the substance is an air pollutant, and that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.” On June 18, 2020, the EPA published its final decision to grant the petitions from two entities to list 1-BP. See 85 FR 36851. This final rule completes the listing action required when a petition is granted.

Having previously published the rationale for the decision to grant these petitions and provided an opportunity for public review and comment, the EPA has determined that there is good cause for amending the CAA HAP list without additional need for public review and comment. This final rule merely codifies a decision that was made in the June 2020 granting notice; therefore, we believe any additional public notice and comment is duplicative, unnecessary, and would serve no useful purpose.

Under CAA section 112(e)(4), the Administrator's decision to add a pollutant to the CAA HAP list is not a final Agency action subject to judicial review, except that any such action may be reviewed when the Administrator promulgates emission standards for the pollutant. Accordingly, the decision to add 1-BP to the HAP list is not subject to judicial review until the Administrator promulgates applicable CAA section 112(d) standards that address emissions of 1-BP.

The CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) specifies that any person may petition the Administrator to modify the list of HAP contained in CAA section 112(b)(1), otherwise known as the CAA HAP list, 1 by adding or deleting a substance. CAA section 112(b)(3)(B) sets out the substantive criteria for granting a petition. It calls for the Administrator to add a substance to the CAA section 112(b)(1) list, “upon a showing by the petitioner or on the Administrator's own determination that the substance is an air pollutant and that emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.” The Administrator is required under the CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to either grant or deny a petition within 18 months of the receipt of a complete petition by publishing a written explanation of the reasons for the Administrator's decision. The Administrator may not deny a petition based solely on inadequate resources or time for review.

This is the first occasion on which the EPA is adding a substance to the CAA HAP list that Congress created in 1990. Since 1990, the EPA has amended the CAA HAP list four times to remove or delist a HAP. They are caprolactam (61 FR 30816; June 18, 1996); ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (69 FR 69320; November 29, 2004); surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (these are compounds that were considered to be included in glycol ethers, which is a listed HAP); (65 FR 47342; August 2, 2000); and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (70 FR 75047; December 19, 2005)). The EPA has also denied a petition to remove methanol from the CAA HAP list (66 FR 21929; May 2, 2001).

The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted petitions requesting that the EPA add 1-BP to the CAA section 112(b)(1) HAP list on October 28, 2010, and November 24, 2011, respectively. 2 On November 28, 2012, in response to the EPA's requests for additional data, HSIA supplemented its petition. Following the receipt of these petitions and supplemental data, the EPA conducted a review to determine whether the petitions were complete according to Agency criteria for the CAA section 112(b)(3) actions, which we explained in the February 6, 2015, document (80 FR 6676). Specifically, the EPA determined that these petitions and supplemental data addressed all the necessary subject areas for the Agency to assess whether emissions, ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of 1-BP are known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse human health effects or adverse environmental effects. On February 6, 2015, the EPA determined these petitions to be complete and published a notification of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal Register (80 FR 6676), that invited the public to comment on the technical merits of these petitions and to submit any information relevant to the technical review of these petitions. Further, on March 11, 2015 (80 FR 12794), the EPA extended the comment period for the notification of receipt of complete petitions to May 7, 2015. Subsequently, on January 9, 2017, the EPA published a draft notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 2354) containing the Agency's intended rationale for granting these petitions and solicited public comments on the rationale. In the draft notice, the EPA determined that these petitions met criteria specified in the CAA section 112(b)(3)(B): i.e., 1-BP is an air pollutant and its emissions and ambient concentrations “may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health.” Further, on June 6, 2017, the EPA extended the comment period until October 1, 2017, in response to the request by Albemarle Corporation, a U.S.-based manufacturer of 1-BP, that the Agency provide an opportunity for prospective commenters to review the 2017 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which included newly required reporting of 1-BP emissions. (82 FR 26091). On June 18, 2020, the EPA granted these petitions after reviewing and addressing public comments received on the draft notice containing the Agency's intended rationale for granting them. (85 FR 36851). 3 Finally, on June 11, 2021, the EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), Addition of 1-Bromopropane to Clean Air Act Section 112 HAP List, that solicited data and comments on the potential regulatory impacts of the addition of a HAP to the Section 112 HAP list. (86 FR 31225).

Based on the information and comments received in response to the ANPRM, the Agency determined that a separate regulation is needed to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of requirements triggered by the addition of a new HAP. The Agency has thus begun working on a separate regulatory “infrastructure” to address the impacts, implications, and requirements associated with the addition of a new HAP to the HAP list. In the meantime, the Agency has also determined that additional guidance may be needed on the listing of 1-BP and intends to publish such guidance upon promulgation of this rule.

The compound 1-BP or n-propyl bromide (nPB), 4 CAS #106-94-5, is a brominated organic colorless liquid that is insoluble in water but soluble in ethanol and ether. Both petitioners and public commenters provided background information regarding 1-BP's chemical properties, physical properties, production, and usage as a part of the 1-BP petition granting process. [See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471]. Applications of 1-BP include solvent cleaning in electronic, metal, and precision cleaning operations; aerosols; adhesives; and as an intermediate chemical in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and agricultural products.

This final rule will amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart C, to add 1-BP to the list of CAA section 112 HAP. The effective date of the addition is February 4, 2022. Once added to the HAP list, 1-BP will become subject to regulation under CAA section 112. (“EPA has a clear statutory obligation under the statute to set emission standards for each listed HAP.” National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). There is no specific period for promulgating standards for newly listed HAPs under CAA section 112(b)(1).

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because it was determined that it raised “novel legal or policy issues.” Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. This action will have no direct immediate impacts under 40 CFR part 63 on emissions of 1-BP, but the addition of 1-BP to the HAP list could have immediate impacts to facilities that emit 1-BP ( e.g., the operating permits program under title V of the CAA).

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule has no net burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This regulatory action is ministerial in nature as it codifies a decision to list 1-BP as a HAP that was made when the petitions to list were granted. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action presents no additional burden on implementing authorities beyond existing requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. However, the EPA held two meetings with tribes to explain this action. The first meeting occurred on June 29, 2020, immediately after the petitions to add 1-BP were granted. The second meeting followed the June 11, 2021, publication of the ANPRM for 1-BP (86 FR 31225).

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. This action codifies a decision to list 1-BP as a HAP that was made when petitions were granted in 2020.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action is ministerial in nature as it codifies a decision to list 1-BP as a HAP that was made when petitions were granted in 2020 and does not have any direct impact on human health or the environment.

This action is subject to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule in section I of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Order, DA 21-1631, adopted and released on December 22, 2021. The complete text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/document/2022-annual-adjustment-civil-monetary-penalties-reflect-inflation. The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats for people with disabilities ( e.g., Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) or to request reasonable accommodations ( e.g., accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 included, as section 701 thereto, the Inflation Adjustment Act, which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and maintain their deterrent effect. Under the Inflation Adjustment Act, agencies are required to make annual inflationary adjustments by January 15 each year, beginning in 2017. The adjustments are calculated pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. OMB issued guidance on December 15, 2021, and this Order follows that guidance. The Commission therefore updates the civil monetary penalties for 2022, to reflect an annual inflation adjustment based on the percent change between each published October's CPI-U; in this case, October 2021 CPI-U (276.589)/October 2020 CPI-U (260.388) = 1.06222. The Commission multiplies 1.06222 by the most recent penalty amount and then rounds the result to the nearest dollar.

For 2022, the adjusted penalty or penalty range for each applicable penalty is calculated by multiplying the most recent penalty amount by the 2022 annual adjustment (1.06222), then rounding the result to the nearest dollar. The adjustments in civil monetary penalties that we adopt in this Order apply only to such penalties assessed on and after January 15, 2022.

This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order (SRO) in WC Docket No. 18-336, adopted on November 18, 2021and released on November 19, 2021. The document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-119A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

1. We conclude that requiring covered text providers to support text-to-988 will save lives. No commenter in the record opposes adoption of a text-to-988 requirement. As Americans become more reliant on texting to communicate, the need to access mental health assistance and resources by text is essential. Text messaging to the Lifeline will facilitate access to critical mental health resources for all, and particularly for at-risk populations who tend to prefer communicating through text rather than phone calls.

2. The record reflects overwhelming support for the conclusion that text-to-988 functionality will greatly improve consumer access to the Lifeline. Over 14 National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) offices across the United States filed in support of text messaging to 988. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Government agency responsible for overseeing the Lifeline, states that texting capability would improve equitable access to the Lifeline, especially for at-risk communities; and Vibrant, the administrator of the Lifeline, also notes that “text-to-988 capability would improve consumer accessibility to the Lifeline and save lives.” Mental Health America suggests that “[i]f 988 is implemented without support for text messaging, individuals in need of mental health crisis services, particularly youth and adolescents, will remain unanswered.” A bipartisan group of U.S. Representatives from Colorado express their support, stating that “[b]y allowing a text-to-988 option in addition to voice call, the Commission can lower the bar to entry and improve access to crisis counseling and mental health services.” Text-to-988 will provide greater access to anyone who is not comfortable calling the Lifeline or cannot make a phone call. For instance, individuals who are in abusive or controlling situations may feel safer texting than making a verbal call when in a crisis. Similarly, for individuals who are helping someone who is experiencing symptoms such as paranoia or delusions and appears threatening, texting offers greater safety when reaching out for crisis assistance.

3. The record also demonstrates that requiring covered text providers to support text-to-988 functionality will provide significant benefits to at-risk populations, particularly to young Americans who are disproportionately at risk for mental health crises. Research shows that serious psychological distress, major depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts among adolescents and young adults have increased significantly in recent years. SAMHSA explains that individuals who send texts or online chats to the Lifeline both skew younger and are more likely to experience current suicidal ideation relative to the categories of individuals who typically access the Lifeline via phone. Nearly 95% of teens have access to smart phones and report that texting is the primary way by which they connect. 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.” Nevada, which conducted one of the country's first text messaging for crisis response pilot programs, TextToday, found an increase in help-seeking behaviors by youth as a result of the program and a preference for texting among the youth age cohort. Some members of at-risk populations may prefer or find it easier to access the Lifeline via text as compared to the online chat portal, which requires people to have internet access, find the website, and locate the chat portal. A survey addressing how teens are coping and connecting during COVID-19 reported that 65% of teens used texting to communicate with friends and family more than usual in response to the pandemic.

4. In addition to young Americans, text-to-988 will help other American communities that are disproportionately impacted by suicide, including Veterans, LGBTQ+ individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and rural Americans. Death by suicide amongst Veterans has steadily increased over the past several years. Furthermore, the suicide rate has risen faster among Veterans than it has for non-Veteran adults. LGBTQ+ youth are nearly five times as likely to have attempted suicide compared to heterosexual youth, and the suicide rate for Black children ages 5-12 is about two times higher compared to white children. The record indicates that these at-risk communities may use text services at higher rates than other communities. For example, NAMI reports that people of color text at a higher rate than white individuals, and lower-income households send twice as many texts than households with higher incomes. Mental Health America notes that data they collected 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. Individuals from communities, religious groups, or ethnic backgrounds that have been found to have lower professional help-seeking behaviors or whose communities are less typically accepting of mental health treatment will also benefit from the added privacy of seeking crisis support via text.

5. Text messaging has also become a crucial form of communication for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have other disabilities that impact communication. Studies find an increased risk of suicide among deaf and hard of hearing people when compared to those without hearing loss. These individuals have increasingly adopted widely available text messaging platforms in lieu of specialized legacy devices, such as text telephones (TTY), because of the ease of access, wide availability, and practicability of modern text-capable devices. Some individuals with disabilities find it more effective to access mental health support through text messaging over other means of communications. Vibrant notes that for individuals in the disability community, the ability to text crisis services directly, without need for an intermediary interpreter or service, provides “substantial benefit.” SAMHSA highlights the convenience texting would provide to people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who are at an increased risk for suicide, yet may have “difficulties with back and forth conversations, and may therefore prefer to text rather than call the Lifeline.” Access to communications capabilities for individuals with disabilities is a longstanding Commission priority and statutory obligation. Our requirement to support text-to-988 broadens access to 988 and helps ensure individuals with disabilities that impact communication can more easily reach lifesaving resources.

6. 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 conclude that providing text access at the same short code number will generate synergies that enhance the value of efforts to promote 988. We are also mindful that the promotion and availability of the 988 short code for telephone calls to the Lifeline crisis hotline, and by extension the Veterans Crisis Line, could create confusion as to whether that number is available for, and capable of, receiving text messages. We find that requiring providers to implement text-to-988 will also help to avoid confusion or putting lives at risk.

7. We adopt our proposed two-step process to establish the scope of text messages that fall within our text-to-988 requirement (86 FR 31404, June 11, 2021). While we acknowledge the importance of testing and coordination between covered text providers and the Lifeline, we decline at this time to adopt the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) proposed “third-step” to our scope of text messages because the proposed testing and validation process is not germane to ex ante defining the scope of covered text providers. First, we establish an outer bound definition of “988 text message” that sets the maximum possible scope of text formats which covered text providers may be obligated to support for delivery to 988, based on the definition of “text message” that Congress enacted in 2018 in the Truth in Caller ID context. Second, we establish a process to ensure that covered text providers only must enable transmission of text messages in formats that the Lifeline can actually receive. We also define the scope of entities subject to our text-to-988 requirements— i.e., “covered text providers”—to be consistent with our text-to-911 rules, which include Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) providers and providers of interconnected text messaging services. We find that this approach, in combination, provides a forward-looking, flexible scope that will expand with the capabilities of the Lifeline without unnecessarily obligating covered text providers to support formats that the Lifeline cannot yet receive.

8. Outer Bound Definition. Consistent with our proposal in the further notice of proposed rulemaking (FNPRM) (86 FR 31404, June 11, 2021), we adopt the Truth in Caller ID definition of “text message”—including the definitions for “short message service” (SMS) and, as a requirement when Lifeline is able to support it, “multimedia message service” (MMS)—as the outer bound scope of text messages that covered text providers may be obligated to transmit to 988, which provides that the term (1) 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; (2) includes a SMS message and a multimedia message service (commonly referred to as `MMS') message; and (3) does not include—(i) a real-time, two-way voice or video communication; or (ii) a message sent over an internet protocol (IP)-enabled messaging service to another user of the same messaging service, except a message described in clause (2).

9. We find that there are several advantages to adopting the Truth in Caller ID definition in the text-to-988 context. The definition encompasses, but is not exclusive to, SMS and MMS messages without limiting the outer bounds of supported text formats to specific technologies, thus providing flexibility for inclusion of future text message formats under the rules. It also represents a recent definition provided by Congress, albeit in a different policy context. We slightly modify the Truth in Caller ID definition to account for the 988 context by adopting our proposal to add “or 988” to the phrase from the Truth in Caller ID definition “10-digit telephone number or N11 service code.” This modification will ensure that covered text providers' obligations encompass those text messages sent to the Lifeline via the 3-digit code 988. We also add language clarifying that the definition we adopt “includes and is not limited to” SMS and MMS messages. This addition clarifies that the word “includes,” within the definition we adopt, does not limit the scope of messages meeting the first prong of the definition and instead merely eliminates doubt as to whether SMS and MMS meet that definition. This clarification advances our policy goal of promoting availability of a broad range of communications methodologies for individuals reaching the Lifeline. Further, we think this clarification follows the canon of avoiding rendering language a nullity—if the definition included only SMS and MMS, the first provision would be unnecessary.

10. We decline to adopt the text-to-911 text message definition, as recommended by CTIA and T-Mobile. The Truth in Caller ID definition is more recent than the text-to-911 text message definition, and it derives from Congress. The Truth in Caller ID definition expressly identifies that it includes images and sound. Allowing the parties that operate the Lifeline to incorporate graphics or other rich media in addition to textual communications, if they choose to do so, offers members of at-risk communities the means to communicate flexibly and fully with the Lifeline. Furthermore, the limitation of the initial implementation requirement to SMS messages, as discussed below, addresses CTIA and T-Mobile's concerns about meeting the implementation deadline if the Commission were to immediately require implementation of other text formats. The annual review process we establish below, through which the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) will require covered text providers to implement only those texting formats within the outer bound definition that the Lifeline can actually receive, will ensure that covered text providers are not burdened with unnecessary work, and will avoid any consumer confusion that would arise from implementing formats that cannot go through.

11. We clarify that the exclusions we adopt from the “988 text message” definition match those exclusions contained in the Truth in Caller ID “text message” definition. We therefore exclude “real-time, two-way voice or video communication[s],” as well as messages sent over “IP-enabled messaging service[s] to another user of the same messaging service” that are not SMS or MMS messages. Similar to the Commission's interpretation in the Truth in Caller ID Second Report and Order (84 FR 45669, August 30, 20219), we conclude that “real-time, two-way voice or video communication” includes voice calling service. We find that the plain language of the Truth in Caller ID exclusion indicates that Congress explicitly intended to exclude real-time, two-way video communication from the definition of “text message. We further “interpret the latter exclusion to include non-MMS or SMS messages sent using IP-enable messaging services” between users of the same service. For example, a message transmitted via an application delivered over IP-based networks, such as Twitter or LinkedIn, to another user of the same messaging service would be excluded from the outer bound definition.

12. We decline the Consumer Electronics Association's (CEA's) request to affirmatively determine at this time what particular text messaging formats fit within the outer bound definition. We direct the Bureau to resolve questions concerning the scope of the outer bound during the annual review process by applying the statutory Truth in Caller ID definition and Commission precedent regarding that definition. We clarify that should the Bureau find in the future based on the record before it that rich communications service (RCS), real-time text (RTT), or other formats do not fall within the exclusions from the 988 text message definition, then they may be acceptable formats within the outer bound scope. We anticipate that addressing scope issues as they arise, in the context of specific technologies, will lead to better decisions based on more detailed information than trying to decide well ahead of any specific issue arising.

13. Limitation to Currently-Employed Technology. As proposed in the FNPRM, we initially require that covered text providers only support transmission of SMS messages to 988. We adopt the proposed procedure delegating to the Bureau future determinations to require covered text providers to support additional text formats within the outer bound definition, in consultation with our Federal partners and in consideration of what text formats the Lifeline is capable of receiving. We therefore define “covered 988 text message” as 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.

14. The record supports requiring transmission of texts to 988 in SMS format. Vibrant indicates that the Lifeline can currently receive and respond to SMS messages sent to the 10-digit number. Furthermore, representatives of covered text providers and public interest groups express support for requiring transmission of SMS messages to 988. In their support for adoption of requirements based on the Commission's text-to-911 rules, CTIA and T-Mobile note the technical feasibility of supporting SMS messages to 988, given that that format is currently supported in texting to 911. CEA also argues that the Commission should, at a minimum, require transmission of text messages in SMS within its broader outer bound definition. Because there is no technical or operational impediment to transmitting SMS messages to 988 expressed by covered text providers, and the Lifeline is currently able to receive and respond to SMS messages, we require covered text providers to support SMS messages to 988.

15. We decline at this time to require covered text providers to support other text message formats, such as MMS, RCS, and RTT, because the Lifeline cannot currently receive texts in these formats. The Bureau will consider requiring covered text providers to support these or other additional formats through the Public Notice process we discuss below, should the Lifeline indicate it can receive such formats. While commenters note that rich media communications and next-generation text formats may offer benefits to individuals attempting to access the Lifeline, requiring covered text providers to transmit messages in these formats is premature because we do not know if or when the Lifeline will accept these formats. In addition, as CTIA states, including additional text formats such as RTT and RCS in the scope of our text-to-988 requirements “would cause consumer confusion when the Lifeline is only capable of receiving SMS messages today” and, due to technical and engineering obstacles, would likely delay implementation of text-to-988 service. Finally, with respect to multimedia messages, both the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) and CTIA note that including media in text messages, a feature not currently supported in text-to-911 service, would present technical obstacles that could impede implementation by the July 16, 2022, deadline that we adopt. Although Vibrant indicates that the Lifeline is technically capable of receiving MMS formats, it clarifies that Lifeline policy and clinical standards “currently block[ ] images and video from being seen by the counselor.” Because of the impediments to transmitting media such as images and video with text to 988, we decline to require covered text providers to support MMS messages to 988.

16. Just as our Federal partners recently added a texting capability to the Lifeline, they may choose to expand the functionality of their texting service over time. It is important for the requirements we establish to keep pace flexibly and readily rather than resorting to a Commission-level proceeding every time the Lifeline can accept a new text format. We therefore direct the Bureau to routinely consult with our Federal partners at SAMHSA and the VA to determine when the Lifeline has implemented a new text message format to 988. We further direct the Bureau, on or before June 30, 2023, and no less frequently than annually thereafter, to propose and seek comment on implementation parameters for covered text providers to transmit any additional text message formats to 988 that the Lifeline is capable of receiving and that are within the scope of the outer bound message definition adopted herein. The Bureau shall identify the additional text messaging format(s) that the Lifeline is capable of receiving, if any; propose and seek comment on an interpretive determination as to whether the additional text message format(s) fall within the outer bound definition; and propose and seek comment on implementation deadline(s) for those additional text message formats. If the Bureau finds after this process that the Lifeline is capable of receiving an additional text format that is within the scope of the outer bound definition that we have established, it shall release a second Public Notice requiring covered text providers to implement text-to-988 using that new format and setting an implementation date that is as prompt as reasonably practical. If the Bureau instead finds that, notwithstanding its initial proposal, the Lifeline is not capable of receiving an additional text format that is within the scope of the outer bound that we have established, it shall issue a Public Notice declining to adopt its initial proposal. The Bureau may set one implementation deadline or staggered implementation deadlines for different classes of providers, and it shall identify all implementation deadlines with certainty ( i.e., by a specified calendar date). In setting a deadline or deadlines for compliance, the Bureau shall assess factors such as technical and financial challenges with respect to implementation, the status of the Lifeline, and the public interest. We find our two-step approach allows us to ensure rapid support for additional texting formats as technology evolves, while providing certainty to the industry and the public. Further, we find this approach facilitates further updates when the Lifeline implements a new texting format without requiring a Commission rulemaking, which often requires more time than Bureau-level action. Accordingly, we direct the Bureau to implement the approach we describe above, including through prescribing implementation deadlines.

17. CEA supports the Commission's proposal but asks for the Bureau to conduct annual public hearings rather than develop a written record. We find the proposed Public Notice procedure achieves the same purpose as a public hearing—providing a forum to establish a record regarding expansion of the covered 988 text message definition—while imposing fewer administrative burdens and costs on the public and the Commission. We expect the Bureau to meet with interested parties, as permitted by the Commission's ex parte rules.

18. We decline to adopt CEA's proposals to bypass our Public Notice procedure and automatically include MMS, RCS, or RTT within the scope of covered 988 text messages if and when the Lifeline is ready to accept those new texting formats. We think the Public Notice process is valuable because it will allow the Bureau to gather information to set appropriate technology-specific implementation deadlines and to evaluate whether a given technology fits within the outer scope of the definition of 988 text message we adopt herein. It also provides the Bureau time to facilitate dialogue between parties should any complications arise. We are concerned that automatic inclusion of certain formats in the future could lead to avoidable problems, and we therefore decline CEA's suggestion.

19. We also decline CEA's proposal that, should the Bureau or Commission require inclusion of RCS, RTT, or any other format, covered text providers would be required to support the new format “by the later of (i) three months after the Lifeline states that it is ready to receive such format; or (ii) the date upon which the affected covered text provider begins providing such texting format to its customers generally.” We find it best to grant the Bureau flexibility to determine an implementation timeframe appropriate to each technology the Lifeline may implement. We prefer this approach because the Bureau will be able to make a decision based on a thorough record focused on the Lifeline's actual implementation of the technology. We anticipate that some technologies such as RTT that are already generally in use may be easier for covered text providers, especially larger providers, to support if implemented by the Lifeline, and we encourage the Bureau to take ease of implementation and availability of the technology into account when reaching a determination.

20. We decline requests from CEA and ZP Better Together (ZP) to require direct video communication (DVC) and direct dialing from video relay service (VRS) to 988. With respect to VRS, ZP believes that by dialing 988 directly, both a Lifeline counselor and a VRS communications assistant would show up simultaneously. We are not addressing ZP's VRS request at this time because direct 988 dialing for VRS is beyond the scope of this item, which is focused on text-to-988. With respect to DVC, we strongly encourage the development and implementation of direct communications solutions for individuals with disabilities. However, the Lifeline does not receive direct communications via video. Requiring providers to support communications that the Lifeline is not currently capable of receiving would cause consumer confusion, as individuals in crisis may attempt to access the Lifeline via direct video communications without realizing that the Lifeline cannot answer. We are pleased that the Lifeline is available to users of telecommunications relay services, including via 988, and the Lifeline maintains a separate TTY number, and we encourage our Federal partners to continue to consider additional alternative means by which individuals with disabilities may contact the Lifeline. Users of speech-to-speech services and TTY-based TRS dial 711 first to connect to a communications assistant who will complete the call to the Lifeline.

21. We adopt our proposed definition of “covered text providers” as that term is defined in the Commission's text-to-911 rules, to include “all CMRS providers, as well as 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 find that the straightforward and well-established definition from the 911 context best delineates the scope of covered text providers obligated to support text-to-988 service.

22. The record supports our proposal to adopt the text-to-911 definition of “covered text provider” here. CTIA encourages us to keep the text-to-988 scope consistent with the scope of covered text providers in the text-to-911 context in order to “identify a well-known and experienced scope of providers who will need to work collaboratively with the Lifeline to achieve the aggressive deadline that CTIA and others have suggested.” T-Mobile similarly agrees with CTIA that the Commission should look to its text-to-911 rules when establishing the scope of covered text providers in the text-to-988 context. And, as CTIA notes, no commenter suggests an alternative definition to our proposal.

23. We require interconnected text messaging service providers, which enable customers to “send text messages to all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers and receive text messages from the same,” to support text-to-988 service. We decline to apply our requirements to non-interconnected text providers, as CEA suggests. By definition, non-interconnected text providers cannot send text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, meaning they are unlikely to be able to transmit texts to and receive texts from 988. Even non-interconnected text providers that use telephone numbers—for instance where an application uses telephone numbers to identify users relative to each other rather than for routing—may nonetheless be unable to send text messages to users of other services or to all or substantially all telephone numbers. Obligating non-interconnected text providers to attempt to route texts to 988 via telephone numbers when physical routing is beyond such providers' control could increase customer confusion or diminish public trust in texting as a means to reach the Lifeline.

24. Voice on the Net (VON) and Mitel request that we exempt covered text providers in Wi-Fi only locations because “there remain challenges to the reliability of routing text messages to interconnected networks without the benefit of a CMRS provider.” We decline at this time to adopt a blanket exemption for covered text providers in Wi-Fi only locations. While we anticipate interconnected text messaging service providers will typically use CMRS-based solutions to support text-to-988, CMRS networks are not the only means of interconnection, and covered text providers may use any reliable method or methods to support text routing and transmission to 988. Furthermore, neither VON nor Mitel elaborate on or provide evidence to support their claims of technical challenges associated with routing without access to a CMRS network, or that such challenges cannot be bypassed by adopting a non-CMRS solution. While we agree with Mitel that “[r]outing messages to the interconnected network often requires access to an underlying wireless network or provider,” commenters have not provided sufficient support for us to conclude that covered text providers in Wi-Fi only locations are never able to use a CMRS-based or alternative method to reliably support text routing and transmission to 988. We reiterate that our requirements exclude providers that are unable to allow consumers to send text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers.

25. We adopt our proposal to require covered text providers to route covered 988 text messages to the Lifeline's current 10-digit number, 1-800-273-8255 (TALK). Our decision is consistent with the Commission's approach in the 988 Report and Order (85 FR 57767, September 16, 2020) to require service providers to “transmit all calls initiated by an end user dialing 988 to the current toll free access number for the Lifeline.” Most commenters support centralized routing for text-to-988.

26. We find our centralized routing rule will allow for swift implementation of text-to-988 to the Lifeline's 10-digit number by lowering technical requirements and costs for covered text providers to route texts to the Lifeline. As Vibrant states, our centralized routing solution for text-to-988 will “allow[] for a seamless delivery of crisis intervention services that is consistent with clinical standards, best practices, and national guidelines overseen by the administrator and SAMHSA.” CTIA notes that by requiring centralized routing, “the Commission can significantly lower technical hurdles to enable wireless providers to deploy text-to-988 as soon as possible.” ATIS “has not identified any technical challenges associated with” routing covered 988 texts to the Lifeline 10-digit number. We note that several wireless providers were able to implement routing calls to 988 within six months of adoption, and we anticipate that similarly swift implementation may be possible here.

27. We also find that adopting our proposal will provide our Federal partners with the flexibility to develop and expand routing solutions to meet the Lifeline's needs. Once text messages are routed to the Lifeline's 10-digit number, the Lifeline can then “forward those messages to the appropriate local crisis center,” similar to the current mechanism for voice call routing to 988. Currently, the Lifeline's network consists of over 180 crisis centers, with 33 centers providing text service. SAMHSA has identified resource strain and capacity issues experienced during its rollout of text service to the Lifeline's 10-digit number and, as a result, indicates its intention to explore working with existing crisis text and chat services outside the Lifeline as well as expanding text capacity within the network. We encourage SAMHSA and the VA to work with outside entities as needed to meet increased demand, and we believe our centralized routing rule will better allow for the Lifeline's network to adapt, evolve, and expand as necessary to meet capacity and technological needs.

28. We decline to require covered text providers to route covered 988 text messages directly to a Lifeline local crisis center or Veterans Crisis Line crisis center. While text-to-911 uses such direct routing, we believe that approach would be counterproductive for text-to-988. We disagree with Intrado's proposal to leverage the existing text-to-911 infrastructure by using Intrado's Text Control Center (TCC) services to transmit texts to 988 directly to an individual local crisis center, once the crisis center has made a valid request for text-to-988 service. This proposal mirrors the text-to-911 rules, where a covered text provider must enable text-to-911 service within six months of a local Public Safety Answering Point's (PSAP's) valid request for service. We are concerned that implementation of a localized routing model would be time-consuming, contrary to our goal of making text-to-988 rapidly available to all Americans. CTIA and T-Mobile point to specific technical and administrative challenges should the Commission require covered text providers to route texts to 988 to local crisis centers, which would compromise swift implementation by the July 16, 2022, date. ATIS, T-Mobile, and VON also note routing to the local crisis centers would require the adoption of new technical standards and specifications, including the development of intermediate gateway providers at regional centers, which could increase costs and delay launch of text-to-988. Requiring delivery of texts to 988 to individual crisis centers could impede the Lifeline network's future expansion, as covered text providers would need to implement text routing to each new center to ensure that the community served by that center can communicate via text if desired, as opposed to immediate nationwide access through centralized routing. Furthermore, as CTIA points out, “Intrado fails to explain why texts to 9-8-8 should be routed differently from voice calls to 9-8-8.” We see no difference between voice and text service to the Lifeline presented in the record that would justify adopting alternate routing infrastructures for either service. In contrast, there are significant differences between 988 and 911, chief among them the nationwide Lifeline voice and text service routed through a centralized, toll free 10-digit number as opposed to the localized PSAP network.

29. We find that it is premature to require covered text providers to enable covered 988 text messages to include location information. As instructed by Congress in the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, in April 2021 the Bureau released a report on the costs and feasibility of providing location information with calls to 988. In the report, the Bureau recommended the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory committee to develop detailed recommendations on how to address several challenges presented in the record, including privacy considerations, technical implementation, and cost recovery. NAMI and Vibrant reiterate arguments raised in the 988 Geolocation Report that requiring geolocation information with calls and texts to local crisis centers will improve accuracy in connecting individuals in crisis with counselors who are in the best position to provide localized care. Yet, as the Bureau identified in the 988 Geolocation Report, requiring providers to transmit location information to 988 “raises important privacy and legal issues, is technically complex, and could impose significant costs.” Several commenters, including ATIS and CTIA, highlight the challenges identified in the 988 Geolocation Report and oppose a location information requirement for text-to-988, indicating it would be premature for the Commission to adopt such a mandate without further study and standards development. Given the similar complexity and interrelation between call and text routing to 988, we decline, at this time, NAMI and Vibrant's requests to require location information with texts transmitted to 988. Commenters also raise privacy concerns should the Commission require the transmission of location information without the texter's consent. Given the Bureau's recommendation and the similar concerns raised in the record regarding technical limitations of providing location information, we decline, at the present time, to require covered text providers to include location information with texts to 988.

30. We also decline to require covered text providers to take action to route texts to 988 to the Veterans Crisis Line, and we instead defer to our Federal partners to determine whether and how to make it possible to text 988 for the Veterans Crisis Line's text service. Telephone callers to the Lifeline's 10-digit number can press “1” to connect directly with a crisis counselor at the Veterans Crisis Line. Texting, on the other hand, is not presently integrated—texters who wish to reach the Veterans Crisis Line contact a text short code (838255) rather than the Lifeline's toll free 10-digit number. We recognize that there would be significant benefits to enabling texters to reach the Veterans Crisis Line by texting 988. At the same time, we recognize the critical need for carefully developing a pilot program and extensively testing the transfer of texts between 988 and the Veterans Crisis Line to ensure that no Service Member, Veteran, or family member is left without access to lifesaving resources. Any rush to enable texting 988 for the Veterans Crisis Line's text service before sufficient implementation work and testing would raise safety concerns, should any text conversations be dropped or lost in transfer. We believe our Federal partners at the VA and SAMHSA are best positioned to evaluate the benefits, challenges, and costs of transferring texts and to pursue a solution, if desirable. We agree with ATIS that use of 988 “makes it infeasible to automatically route calls to one service or the other” without additional information, such as through a secondary input exchange, to enable providers to correctly route the text to the proper recipient. There is no record support for Commission action to require providers to selectively route texts to 988 to the Veterans Crisis Lifeline's text service. Nor does the record reveal any solutions for requiring providers to implement texting to 988 for the Veterans Crisis Line's text service that we could effectuate in conjunction with requiring providers to implement texting to 988 for the Lifeline. After evaluation and testing, our Federal partners may be able to pursue a workable, reliable approach to enabling texts to 988 to reach the Veterans Crisis Line. At the present time, Service Members, Veterans, and their families may reach the Veterans Crisis Line by calling 1-800-273-8255 and pressing 1, by texting 838255, or by chat through the Veterans Crisis Line's website, https://www.veteranscrisisline.net. We recognize that during the rollout and launch of 988, our Federal partners at the VA will face challenges in promoting widespread public awareness that the Veterans Crisis Line is reachable by text through a short code that is separate from 988. We direct Commission staff to work cooperatively with our Federal partners to promote awareness of how Service Members, Veterans, and their families can reach the Veterans Crisis Line.

31. We adopt our proposal to set a uniform nationwide implementation deadline for text-to-988 of July 16, 2022—concurrent with 988's voice implementation deadline—for all covered text providers to support transmission of all covered 988 text messages. As stated above, this deadline applies only to texts the user sends to 988. It does not apply to texts to the Veterans Crisis Line using its existing short code. Guiding our decision is the need to minimize the time needed to implement text-to-988 so as to help address the growing epidemic of suicide as quickly as possible. By setting a uniform deadline, rollout of text-to-988 will be most effective, enabling stakeholders to clearly and consistently communicate when the public can access texting services universally, while avoiding any confusion stemming from a different deadline than voice implementation. Although a phased-in approach may enable us to set a shorter deadline for some providers, this approach risks confusion not just among those “unaware of the details of staggered regulatory deadlines,” but also among those who may seek to call rather than text. Such a scenario “could be disastrous for individuals and, in the aggregate, could erode trust in the Lifeline.” Further, we find that a July 16, 2022, deadline provides the Lifeline adequate time to prepare for additional texting volume, with Vibrant expressing confidence following its successful 2021 pilot program that “the Lifeline has the capability to receive text-to-988 messages on the first day of 988 operation.” And as ATIS highlights, because we only require that covered text providers send text messages to the Lifeline's 10-digit number, the need for a phased approach is eliminated.

32. We specifically set a deadline of July 16, 2022, which nearly all commenters who address timing support. Just as we concluded previously with respect to 988 implementation for voice calls, we set as early of a deadline as possible because of the numerous benefits of swift implementation in preventing suicide. As explained above, providers need not route calls to individual call centers, eliminating the need for lengthy development of new technical standards and specifications. Some providers themselves also support a July 16, 2022, deadline as providing sufficient time for implementation. Setting a deadline for text-to-988 that matches the existing deadline for implementing calls to 988 also avoids public confusion and enhances the efficacy of marketing campaigns promoting 988. As the Mental Health Associations state, “[d]elaying an implementation deadline [beyond July 2022] will not prevent people in crisis from reaching out to 988 through text,” and such individuals will find their “[r]equest for help will go unanswered” without action in this proceeding.

33. We reject VON's arguments that we should set a deadline of 12 months following the effective date of the order due to “[t]he need to develop and implement new routing and technical standards” that may pose challenges to meeting the voice deadline of July 16, 2022. Specifically, VON compares the Lifeline's call centers to PSAPs, explaining how in the context of text-to-911, a new joint standard needed to be created in order to direct texts to the latter. However, as explained above, we do not require that providers route texts to individual call centers, but instead to the Lifeline's toll free 10-digit number. Additionally, VON cites these potential challenges only in vague terms, and claims only that they “might” serve as obstacles to “meeting the voice deadline of July 16, 2022.” Moreover, as explained below, the flexible text-to-988 rules we adopt in this document do not generate significant technical obstacles, and the record's support for a July 16, 2022, deadline suggests that the issues pertinent to a texting solution specifically can be overcome in the given timeframe. For example, ATIS supports a July 16, 2022, deadline as “reasonable” given that “it is already possible to text the existing Lifeline toll-free number,” highlighting that “texting to the new three-digit short code (988) would create no new technical challenges.”

34. We adopt our proposal to allow covered text providers to use any reliable method or methods to support text routing and transmission to 988. We reiterate that covered text providers may use any reliable method or methods to support text routing and transmission to 988, and emphasize our neutrality on the technologies that covered text providers use to support text messaging to 988. We find that this approach accounts for currently-available text messaging formats and technologies and also provides the flexibility to adapt to future availability. No commenter opposed our proposal. As ATIS explains, texting to 988 “can and should be implemented in a timely manner[,]” and should “create no technical challenges.”

35. Network Upgrades. Based on the record, we do not expect that covered text providers will need to install significant network upgrades to implement the texting to 988 requirements adopted herein. Though covered text providers must determine how to support texting to 988 as adopted, the rules we adopt in this document provide the flexibility to choose the most effective method for doing so. For example, covered text providers may choose to route text messages to 988 over their mobile-switched networks or use an IP-based method to deliver text messages to the Lifeline. We are encouraged that many providers have implemented voice calling to 988 a year or more before the implementation deadline, and we envision that covered text providers can also easily implement texting to 988.

36. Equipment Upgrades. We find, based on the record, that no significant software or equipment upgrades will be necessary to implement texting to 988. We agree with ATIS, one of the organizations that set the standards for texting to 911, that “[a] focus on functionality rather than technical standards is required to meet the needs of those who communicate primarily via texting.” We are not persuaded by VON's argument that, like implementing text-to-911, industry needs to develop new routing and technical standards that may delay text-to-988's implementation. VON generically states that 911 networks and the Lifeline are “two distinct infrastructures” that will require new standards, but does not explain why these infrastructural differences merit developing new standards. We find more convincing ATIS's assertion that changes to industry standards will “be minimal if, as expected, no changes are required to consumer devices to support text-to-988 requirements” because the bulk of the record indicates that texting to 988's centralized routing solution, limited scope of text messaging service technologies, and other adopted requirements are straightforward to implement by our adoption deadline.

37. We exempt legacy devices that are incapable of sending text messages via 3-digit codes from the text-to-988 requirements, provided the software for these devices cannot be upgraded over the air to allow text-to-988. In the Text-to-911 proceeding, the Commission did not require certain legacy devices to comply with the text-to-911 requirements because “the messaging application or interface on the mobile device will likely provide an error message indicating an invalid destination number, reducing user confusion somewhat” that the legacy device could not support texting to 911. No commenter discussed legacy devices nor indicated that circumstances have changed since the Commission adopted this exemption in the Text-to-911 proceeding. Accordingly, we find that the same exemption is appropriate here.

38. Network Access. We require CMRS providers to allow access to their SMS networks by any other covered text provider for the capabilities necessary to transmit 988 text messages originating on such other covered text providers' networks, similar to the text-to-911 rules. We find this rule is necessary to implement our text to 988 requirement as we anticipate that many interconnected text providers will choose CMRS network-based solutions to implement texting to 988. No commenter opposed providing this network access. Mitel explains that, like in the texting to 911 context, routing messages to interconnected networks often requires access to an underlying wireless network and provider. Similar to the text-to-911 rules, we adopt this requirement to “respond to consumers' reasonable expectations and reduce consumer confusion” regarding text-to-988's availability.

39. Similar to the Commission's position in the Text-to-911 Second Report and Order (79 FR 55367, September 14, 2014), we conclude 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. As in the text-to-911 context, we further require 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 clarify, however, that we do not intend to use these requirements to establish an open-ended obligation for CMRS providers to maintain underlying SMS network support merely for the use of other providers, nor do we require CMRS providers to reconfigure any SMS text-to-988 platforms in order to facilitate the ability of other covered text providers to access the CMRS providers' networks. Further, as with the text-to-911 rules, CMRS providers' obligation to allow access to CMRS networks “is limited to the extent that the CMRS providers offers SMS.” While we expect that adopting these rules will similarly encourage “interconnected text providers to actively develop solutions to support [text-to-988] without reliance on CMRS providers' underlying networks,” we nonetheless encourage providers to enact solutions to carry other covered text providers' text messages to 988 over their networks.

40. Cost Recovery. We adopt our proposal to require all covered text providers to bear their own costs to implement text-to-988. We find that this approach promotes efficiency in implementation and avoids unnecessary administrative costs. In the 988 Report and Order, we observed that “[u]nlike previous numbering proceedings in which the Commission established a cost recovery mechanism,” implementation of 988 itself does not involve “shared industry costs such as central or regional numbering databases or third-party administrators.” Similarly, we conclude that implementation of a text-to-988 solution requires no shared industry costs, with costs being provider-specific and solutions unique to each. As such, as proposed in the FNPRM we find that the requirements in section 251(e)(2) of the Act 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” does not apply.

41. Bounce-back Messages. We decline to require covered text providers to send an automatic bounce-back message specifically designed to address where text-to-988 service is unavailable for several reasons. First, the record indicates that failed messages are likely to be rare. CTIA explains that network failures are “rare due to redundancies in the SMS network” and Vibrant indicates that to date the Lifeline's text messaging service has not experienced any downtime. Second, in the rare instance that covered text providers fail to deliver a text message to the Lifeline, current notice practices are sufficient. Individuals texting the Lifeline currently receive a bounce-back message under a variety of circumstances. CTIA explains that covered text providers usually send customers a notification from a device or network when a CMRS provider cannot deliver a text message due to a network failure. Vibrant also indicates that the Lifeline currently sends individuals scheduled text messages approximately every 10 minutes if there is a wait to reach a crisis counselor that informs them they are in the queue, offers access to other resources while they wait, and provides the option to call the Lifeline. Consequently, we further agree with commenters that to the extent operational concerns, network congestion, or outsized demand prevent texters from reaching a crisis counselor, the parties that operate the Lifeline are in the best position to send a message to texters because covered text providers do not have visibility into the Lifeline's operations. Third, we decline to require 988-specific bounce-back messages because such a mandate risks delay of text-to-988 implementation. We recognize comments from CTIA which state that developing a bounce-back messaging capability “would require substantial additional time and complexity, as well as the development of standards and requirements for implementation, and would significantly delay the July 16, 2022 implementation target.” T-Mobile further asserts that when a CMRS provider has not delivered a text message to the Lifeline due to network congestion, sending a Lifeline-specific automatic bounce-back message could be technically infeasible because “[c]arriers cannot determine if a text sent to the 10-digit Lifeline number has not been delivered due to network congestion or other factors related to nature of SMS generally.”

42. Finally, a key circumstance that prompted the Commission to require automatic bounce-back messaging for text-to-911 are not present for text-to-988. In the Text-to-911 proceeding, the Commission adopted an automatic bounce-back messaging requirement because texting was and is only available to some PSAPs, and Americans in many parts of the country could not text 911 at all. In contrast, our centralized routing approach ensures that texting to 988 will be uniformly available nationwide. The unique geographic gaps that the bounce-back requirement addresses in the 911 context are not present here. It is possible that, as in the text-to-911 context, requiring a bounce-back message for text-to-988 could help “persons in emergency situations being able to know immediately if a text message has been delivered to the proper authorities” in the limited situations when consumers cannot send text messages to the Lifeline. However, given the urgency of improving access to lifesaving suicide prevention resources, and in light of existing protections against and in the event of a delivery failure, we decline to a bounce-back messaging requirement for text-to-988 at this time. We will monitor the operation of texting to 988 post-implementation and will not hesitate to revisit the issue of requiring a bounce-back if warranted.

43. Federal Coordination. We direct the Bureau to continue to coordinate implementation of 988 with SAMHSA, including any issues pertaining to the delivery of text messages to 988. We direct the Bureau and Commission staff to support the VA in promoting awareness of texting options for Service Members, Veterans, and their families, and to support the VA and SAMHSA in piloting, testing, and implementing any solution our Federal partners may choose to pursue to allow texting to 988 for the Veterans Crisis Line's text service. We also encourage SAMHSA to continue to work to expand the Lifeline's texting infrastructure. We will continue to work with and support our Federal partners in their efforts to assist Americans in crisis.

44. Future Technical Corrections to Lifeline 10-Digit Number. In our rules, we identify the current 10-digit telephone number of the Lifeline, 1-800-273-8255 (TALK). We direct the Bureau, after notice and comment, to update this reference to the correct number if the Lifeline ever changes telephone numbers. This direction applies to the text-to-988 rules we adopt in this document and to our previously-adopted 988 telephone rules.

45. We conclude that Title III of the Act and the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) provide us with authority for the rules we adopt in this document. No commenter opposes these conclusions. With respect to CMRS providers, we find that Title III provides us the authority to require wireless carriers to enable and support text-to-988 service. Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that Title III provides the Commission a “broad mandate” to manage spectrum usage in the public interest, we find that significant public interest benefits will likely inure from broadly enabling access to lifesaving services through texting. Further, the rules adopted here are analogous to those the Commission adopted to facilitate text-to-911, which relied in part on the Commission's Title III authority. Therefore, with respect to CMRS providers, we conclude that Title III provides sufficient authority for the rules we adopt in this document.

46. As to interconnected text messaging service providers, the CVAA granted us authority to adopt “other regulations . . . as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an internet protocol-enabled emergency network.” We conclude that the Lifeline constitutes an “emergency network” within the meaning of the CVAA. The CVAA does not define what an “emergency network” is, nor does it elaborate on what qualifies as “emergency services.” However, Congress, through the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act, deemed “life-saving resources” such as the Lifeline and the Veterans Crisis Line “essential” and recognized the need for an “easy-to-remember, 3-digit phone number”—that is, one readily available in an emergency situation. As CTIA argues, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that such services should be considered “emergency services” and that the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line act as an “emergency network” within the meaning of the CVAA. Moreover, texting capabilities provide “easy access to emergency services for people with disabilities,” including those with hearing and speech disabilities. Such individuals may not be able to take advantage of 988's voice service, necessitating that an alternative means of communicating be provided. We therefore conclude that the CVAA provides authority for the rules we adopt in this document, and the record reflects agreement with our analysis. Because we find that Title III and the CVAA provide sufficient authority for the rules we adopt in this document, we find it unnecessary to address other possible sources of authority to adopt these rules.

47. Consistent with our proposal in the FNPRM, we find that benefits of requiring service providers to support text-to-988 far exceed the costs of implementation. The loss of victims' lives to suicide cannot be adequately captured by any pecuniary measure; the principal benefit of text-to-988 is that it will reduce suicide risk by providing an additional means of reaching help for the most vulnerable. Text-to-988 will reduce the risk of suicide mortality, primarily among those who would either send a text to 988 or forgo a lifesaving intervention altogether. Three vulnerable communities, in particular, face this stark choice: Youth, who rely heavily on text messages for their general communications needs; the deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, and speech disabled; and those who are reluctant to dial 988 because they feel unsafe, ashamed or embarrassed, including many LGBTQ+ youth and victims of domestic abuse. As outlined above, the ability to text to the short and easy-to-remember 988 code will make the lifesaving interventions of the Lifeline crisis centers even more accessible than dialing alone. As no commenter in the record disputes, we find that the benefits of implementing text-to-988 will quickly exceed costs, and dwarf them over time.

48. In the FNPRM, we estimated the cost of implementing text to 988 would be nearly $27 million over five years. We based our estimate on Intrado's existing estimates of the costs of upgrading 911 call centers to receive text messages. Although one commenter asserts that the costs of implementation are likely to be “substantially lower” than our estimate, no commenters provided any individual estimates or disputed our underlying approach or our estimate of the combined total cost of nearly $27 million with an alternate figure. We agree that implementation costs may be lower than we projected. However, since no commenter provided an estimate of the impact of these potential reductions, we find it prudent to rely on our original estimate.

49. Commenters suggest quantifiable benefits that would greatly exceed these costs. For example, the Mental Health Associations emphasize that improved access to “mental health response to mental health crises” will result in cost savings for communities and individuals. These “[e]mergency department visits for mental health and substance use disorders cost an average of $520 across 10.7 million visits in 2017, for a total cost nationwide of nearly $5.6 billion.” Any reduction in these visits and resulting cost savings are benefits of implementing text-to-988. In addition, the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) points to an evaluation of Nevada's TextToday pilot program, one of the country's first crisis response lines that accepted text messages. The evaluation found an increase in help-seeking by youth and a preference for texting. Groups that would be especially likely to benefit from text-to-988 are members of the LGBTQ+ community, and deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, and speech-disabled adults. Between 2015 and 2019, we estimate there were more than 39,000 suicides among youth 10-19, LGBTQ+ adults, and deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, and speech-disabled adults. If text-to-988 reduces the annual risk of suicide mortality among these groups and others by even a very small amount, the benefits would easily outweigh the costs of implementing text-to-988.

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the FNPRM, released April 2021. The Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. Because the Commission amends its rules in the Second Report and Order, the Commission has included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.

2. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules requiring 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 (covered text providers) to enable delivery of text messages to 988. The Commission further requires 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 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.

3. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

4. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments.

5. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

6. 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 final rules adopted pursuant to the Second Report and Order. 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.

7. 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 SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 30.7 million businesses.

8. 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.

9. 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 5ll governmental jurisdictions.

10. 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 [voice over internet protocol] 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.

11. 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 North American Industry Classification System (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.

12. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (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.

13. 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.

14. 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. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of interexchange service providers are small entities.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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. 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.

19. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) . This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 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 employed fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms employed of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) are small entities.

20. The Commission's own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that, as of August 31, 2018, there are 265 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions. The Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

21. 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 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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 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.

25. 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, Global Positioning System (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 employees or less. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Internet Service Providers (Broadband). Broadband internet service providers include wired ( e.g., cable, digital subscriber line (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 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.

29. Internet Service Providers (Non-Broadband). internet access service providers such as dial-up internet service providers (ISPs), 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.

30. 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.

31. The Second Report and Order modifies the Commission's rules to require covered text providers to support text messaging to 988. It concludes that text-to-988 functionality will greatly improve consumer access to the Lifeline, particularly for at-risk populations and thereby save lives. The final rules adopted in the Second Report and Order 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 Second Report and Order (1) establishes a definition that sets the outer bound of text messages sent to 988 that covered text providers may be required to support; (2) directs 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; and (3) requires CMRS providers that offer SMS to allow access by any other covered text provider to the capabilities necessary for transmission of 988 text messages originating on such other covered text providers' application services.

32. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its 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.”

33. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopts a uniform implementation deadline for all covered text providers to route covered 988 text messages to 988 to the Lifeline's 10-digit number by July 16, 2022. The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context is necessary to alleviate potential consumer confusion from adopting different rules, at different times, for different covered text providers. However, the Commission does not believe that the actions in the Second Report and Order will overly burden small carriers or providers. Further, the Commission believes that by its actions, all entities, including small carriers or providers, will benefit from reduced costs. For example, the Commission believes that adopting our proposal to require all covered text providers to bear their own costs to implement text-to-988 will avoid any unnecessary administrative costs. Further, the Commission provides covered text provider flexibility in how they support texting to 988, allowing them to choose the most effective method for doing so.

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

35. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

36. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,103 the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules, as proposed, addressed in the Second Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B of the Second Report and Order. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

37. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

38. People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

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 michelle.sclater@fcc.gov.

40. Accordingly, it is ordered , pursuant to sections 201, 251(e)(4), 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 615c of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 251(e)(4), 301, 303, 307, 309, 316, 615c, that the Second Report and Order in WC Docket No. 18-336 is adopted .

41. It is further ordered that, pursuant to §§ 1.4(b)(1) and 1.103(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1), 1.103(a), the Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

42. It is further ordered that part 52 of the Commission's rules is amended as set forth in Appendix A of the Second Report and Order.

43. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the Second Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

44. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

(47 U.S.C. 201, 251, 301, 303, 307, 309, 316)

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 52 as follows: