[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46340-46352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11761]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 52

[WC Docket No. 18-336; FCC 24-45; FR ID 221857]


National Suicide Hotline Act of 2018

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes to require wireless carriers to implement one or 
more georouting solutions for calls to the 988 Suicide & Crisis 
Lifeline to ensure that calls are routed based on the geographic 
location for the origin of the call, rather than the area code and 
exchange associated with a wireless phone. The Commission also seeks 
comment on a variety of issues related to the implementation of a 
georouting solution for wireless calls, non-wireless calls, and text 
messages to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 28, 2024, and reply comments 
are due on or before July 29, 2024. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before July 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's

[[Page 46341]]

Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit 
comments, identified by WC Docket No. 18-336, by any of the following 
methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any 
hand or messenger delivered filings. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 
Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 
Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     Confidentiality: Some information and materials requested 
by this FNPRM may be confidential and proprietary. Individuals and 
entities may request that confidential and proprietary information 
submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection 
consistent with Sec.  0.459 of the Commission's rules.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merry Wulff, Attorney Advisor, 
Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at 
[email protected] or at (202) 418-1084. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] 
or contact Nicole Ongele, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket No. 18-336, 
FCC 24-45, adopted April 25, 2024, and released April 26, 2024. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection at the 
following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-45A1.pdf.

Ex Parte Rules

    This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) requires 
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and 
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will 
not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has 
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning 
the possible impact of the potential rule and policy changes contained 
in this FNPRM. The Commission invites the general public, particularly 
small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM indicated on the first page of this 
document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed in WC Docket No. 18-336.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document may contain proposed new or revised information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act

    The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 
118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to 
post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The 
required summary of this FNPRM is available at https://www.fcc.gov/proposedrulemakings.

Synopsis

    1. In this FNPRM, we continue the Commission's work to provide 
meaningful access to the 988 Lifeline by proposing that we adopt rules 
requiring wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for 
calls to the 988 Lifeline. We acknowledge and commend the work that the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and 
Vibrant Emotional Health (Vibrant or Lifeline Administrator) have done 
to date to explore and test solutions, and seek to build on that effort 
by developing a record that will clarify the georouting

[[Page 46342]]

solutions that have been proposed, establish the work that remains for 
a solution to be deployed on wireless networks, and help us consider 
how to proceed towards requiring wireless carriers to implement one or 
more solutions. In so doing, we acknowledge that any georouting 
solution for 988 will require cooperation between the wireless carriers 
originating calls and the Lifeline Administrator that controls the call 
routing platform that receives them to implement a complete end-to-end 
solution. We, therefore, undertake a holistic review to ensure that any 
georouting solution deployed is compatible with the needs and systems 
of the 988 Lifeline, as determined by SAMHSA, and successfully connects 
callers in crisis with the local support they need.

Background

How Calls to 988 Are Currently Routed

    2. Under current Commission rules, calls to 988 must first be 
routed to the existing toll free ten-digit access number for the 988 
Lifeline (1-800-273-8255). When the Commission established 988, it 
found that such routing would be the most efficient means to enable 988 
callers to reach the existing national suicide prevention hotline, and 
explained that routing to the 988 Lifeline's toll free number provided 
``considerable benefits'' both for covered providers and the 988 
Lifeline itself, which would enable faster implementation, lower costs 
to maintain 988 routing, and better service. Calls to the 988 
Lifeline's toll free access number are terminated to a single 
aggregation point, specifically, an interactive voice response (IVR) 
where callers are provided with a menu of connection options. Veterans, 
service members, and their families may connect to the Veterans Crisis 
Line operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs by pressing ``1.'' 
Callers may also reach a Spanish language line by pressing ``2'' and 
specialized LGBTQI+ services by pressing ``3''. All other calls are 
routed to one of over 200 regional crisis centers based on the area 
code and exchange of the caller's telephone number supplied by the 
originating service provider. In the event that a center is unable to 
answer, the call is routed to the Lifeline's national backup network. 
Routing to the appropriate crisis call center is handled by a 
centralized routing system overseen by the Lifeline Administrator and 
supported by a grant from SAMHSA.

Initial Efforts To Improve Routing for Calls to 988 From Wireless 
Phones

    3. On April 15, 2021, the Wireline Competition Bureau transmitted a 
report to Congress examining the feasibility and costs of including 
automatic dispatchable location in calls to 988, as required by the 
National Suicide Designation Act of 2020. While the statute required 
the Commission to focus on location information conveyed with a 988 
call, regardless of the technological platform used, the record 
developed for the preparation of the report evidenced an important 
distinction in how a caller's location can impact not only dispatchable 
location but also the routing path of the call to the most 
geographically appropriate crisis center (i.e., georouting).
    4. Georouting refers to technical solutions for directing calls 
based on a geographic location for the origin of the call without 
transmitting information about the caller's precise location. For 
example, calls to various N11 services, such as 211, 311, 511, and 811, 
are routed to call centers based on the geographic location of the cell 
tower that originates the call. By contrast, geolocation involves 
creating systems for the transmission of precise location information 
(e.g., street address) of the caller that could be provided to first 
responders. As the Bureau's report to Congress highlighted, 
transmitting precise location information with calls to the 988 
Lifeline presents a variety of technical, legal, and privacy concerns 
that would require significant investigation and time to resolve. For 
example, we recently adopted rules requiring CMRS providers to use 
device location information to route wireless 911 voice calls and real-
time text (RTT) communications to 911, rather than the location of 
network elements such as cell cite or sector. The legal, technical, and 
privacy considerations of using precise location to route wireless 911 
calls differ from those in the 988 context.
    5. On May 24, 2022, the Commission, in coordination with the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs, convened a forum on the challenges and opportunities 
related to geolocation for calls to the 988 Lifeline. During that 
forum, Intrado, a provider of public safety-related software systems 
and services, proposed a cell-based georouting solution to connect 
calls to 988 with local crisis call centers irrespective of a wireless 
phone's area code. The solution it presented would involve the creation 
of a database that would match the cell tower originating the call to 
988 with a ten-digit phone number associated with the nearest crisis 
center. That ten-digit number would then be used to route the call to a 
geographically appropriate crisis center rather than the area code and 
exchange for the caller's wireless phone.
    6. Following the forum, Commission staff, SAMHSA, and the Lifeline 
Administrator engaged in regular discussions regarding the proposed 
Intrado solution and other efforts that may lead to more accurate 
routing of wireless calls to the 988 Lifeline. In June 2023, SAMHSA, 
the Lifeline Administrator, Intrado Life & Safety, and a wireless 
carrier began a proof of concept to test a modified version of 
Intrado's original cell-based georouting solution in a lab environment, 
i.e., without using any actual caller data from live calls. The 
modified solution also relied on cell tower information, but routed 
calls by ``overlay[ing] static wire center boundaries to create a 
`destination code' representing the nearest crisis call center.'' 
Commission staff regularly received briefings concerning the proof of 
concept, provided technical assistance and guidance in response to 
questions asked during those briefings, and received progress reports.
    7. The proof of concept was completed during the summer of 2023 and 
resulted in calls being successfully routed in the testing environment 
from wireless handsets to the nearest crisis center irrespective of the 
area code associated with the handset. To build on that success, on 
September 28, 2023, the Chairwoman and HHS Assistant Secretary for 
Mental Health and Substance Use Dr. Miriam Delphin-Rittmon sent letters 
to AT&T, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Verizon, CTIA, Competitive Carriers 
Association (CCA), and Rural Wireless Association (RWA) urging wireless 
carriers to take the necessary steps to identity and develop a 988 
georouting solution that could be deployed in their wireless networks. 
Commission staff subsequently held meetings with each recipient of the 
letters to discuss what steps have been taken in response to the 
Chairwoman's letters as well as any identified concerns in implementing 
a georouting solution. Commission staff also inquired about possible 
timeframes and what the Commission could do to support or assist the 
wireless industry's efforts.

Discussion

    8. We seek to build on the progress made by all stakeholders to 
date to identify a georouting solution for the

[[Page 46343]]

988 Lifeline that will enhance the support and resources available to 
callers in crisis. Specifically, we propose to adopt a rule that would 
require wireless carriers to implement one or more georouting solutions 
for calls to the 988 Lifeline, and initiate this FNPRM to thoroughly 
and transparently consider georouting solutions that could be within 
the scope of that mandate, the costs and benefits of mandating a 
georouting solution, and the work that remains to implement a 
georouting solution in a timely manner. As discussed above, we 
reiterate that the proposals herein pertain to georouting solutions. We 
are not considering solutions to geolocation for the 988 Lifeline at 
this time.

Need To Mandate Georouting for Wireless Calls to the 988 Lifeline

    9. We believe that requiring wireless carriers to use a georouting 
solution for the 988 Lifeline is essential to ensure that Americans 
have access to critical suicide prevention and crisis services when 
reaching the 988 Lifeline with a wireless device. Indeed, the record 
developed for the preparation of the 988 Geolocation Report evidenced a 
need for more accurate routing of calls to the 988 Lifeline to account 
for the fact that the majority of calls placed to the 988 Lifeline are 
from wireless phones, and the area codes of those phones often do not 
correspond to the location of the caller. The broader 988 record also 
indicated that such discrepancies may be more prevalent among certain 
groups, such as college students and individuals with ported numbers. 
According to mental health and crisis counseling experts, ensuring that 
calls are routed to a crisis center that is geographically appropriate 
based on the caller's location (rather than the area code of their 
phone) is critical to the 988 Lifeline's objective of providing life-
saving resources to those in need of public health and safety 
resources. Routing individuals in crisis to local crisis centers also 
allows counselors to respond to regional cultural and economic factors 
as well as a community's unique stressors. Moreover, local crisis 
centers have important connections to local care resources that, when 
used, can reduce the risk of suicidality and future crises, and avert 
unnecessary use of emergency services and law enforcement.
    10. We, therefore, seek comment on our proposal to mandate the use 
of one or more georouting solutions by wireless carriers originating 
calls to the 988 Lifeline to achieve these benefits. Some major 
stakeholders have already been exploring georouting solutions with 
SAMHSA and the Lifeline Administrator, and we support voluntary efforts 
by carriers and our federal partners to deploy solutions in wireless 
networks in the near term. Indeed, we would welcome insights from 
wireless carriers that voluntarily deploy georouting solutions in their 
networks, as such information would inform our decision-making. The 
launch of this proceeding reflects our belief that a rule requiring 
wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for the 988 
Lifeline is necessary to ensure that the critical benefits of 
georouting are realized nationwide and within a reasonable period of 
time. We seek comment on that view and whether there would be any 
negative impacts to mandating the use of georouting solutions to 
connect callers to the 988 Lifeline with local crisis centers. We ask 
that commenters address any policy considerations or facts we should 
consider to evaluate whether a rule establishing a georouting mandate 
is needed.

Potential Georouting Solutions for Wireless Calls to the 988 Lifeline

    11. We seek comment on potential georouting solutions for the 988 
Lifeline. As noted above, Intrado proposed one potential solution 
during the May 2022 Geolocation Forum. SAMHSA, the Lifeline 
Administrator, Intrado Life & Safety, and a wireless carrier 
subsequently tested a modified georouting solution during the proof of 
concept completed during the summer of 2023. Since then, additional 
major carriers have voluntarily begun work to develop additional 
georouting solutions with SAMHSA and the Lifeline Administrator that 
may take different approaches to routing calls to crisis centers. We 
seek comment from wireless carriers on the viability of these and any 
other solutions that have been proposed to date, and the work that 
still needs to be done to timely deploy one or more of the solutions on 
wireless networks. We also seek data, documents, and other information 
that provide details about the current status of all proposed 
georouting solutions. In so doing, we invite stakeholders to comment on 
whether georouting solutions that have been developed to date by major 
carriers would be viable for smaller carriers, and any distinctions 
that need to be considered for smaller carriers when mandating the use 
of a georouting solution for the 988 Lifeline.
    12. Technical Specifications. We seek information on the technical 
specifications for all proposed solutions, documented or otherwise, and 
diagrams showing how each solution would route wireless calls to the 
988 Lifeline and/or a description of the same. We also seek technical 
specifications and diagrams showing how wireless calls would be routed 
to geographically appropriate call centers once received by the routing 
platform administered by the Lifeline Administrator. Specifically, we 
seek comment on each functional step that would need to be completed to 
successfully route a call from a wireless carrier to a geographically 
appropriate crisis center, the specific entity that would or could 
perform each function, and the facilities and systems required to 
perform each function. For example, are there any parties beyond the 
wireless carriers originating the calls and the Lifeline Administrator 
responsible for terminating the calls that would need to perform any 
function, or provide any facility or service, for a call to be 
appropriately routed pursuant to a proposed solution? What specific 
functions would the Lifeline Administrator and/or its service providers 
need to perform to successfully terminate calls to geographically 
appropriate crisis centers once received by the 988 Lifeline's 
centralized routing platform? What specific facilities and systems 
would be needed to perform those functions? We ask that commenters 
address whether the technical and functional requirements of a 
particular georouting solution present legal or other barriers that 
could limit the adoption of the solution by other entities, and whether 
there are means to surmount or minimize those barriers. For instance, 
do any of the functional steps of a georouting solution involve 
proprietary elements that would limit whether and how other wireless 
carriers could implement it (e.g., by requiring a service or licensing 
agreement and/or paying a fee)? Lastly, it is our understanding that 
when a caller to the 988 Lifeline selects a specialized service (e.g., 
``1'' for Department of Veterans Affairs; ``2'' for a Spanish language 
line; or ``3'' for specialized LGBTQI+ services) when connected to the 
988 Lifeline's IVR, those calls will be directed to appropriate crisis 
centers based on those selections. We seek comment on whether 
georouting is necessary for these specialized services, and whether 
there are any unique considerations for routing calls that impact our 
proposals. Do the georouting solutions under development contemplate 
routing for such calls? Do stakeholders agree that georouting solutions 
are not needed when a caller to 988 selects a specialized service?

[[Page 46344]]

    13. Correlating the Caller's Location with Call Centers. We seek 
comment on how each proposed solution identifies the caller's location 
and correlates that location with a geographically appropriate crisis 
call center. For instance, both the georouting solution originally 
proposed by Intrado at the May 2022 Forum and the modified Intrado Life 
& Safety solution tested by the proof of concept conducted during the 
summer of 2023 identified the location of the caller based on the cell 
tower that originated the call, and used the location of that cell 
tower to determine the closest crisis center. As noted above, calls to 
certain N11 services (e.g., 211) are also routed to call centers based 
on the geographic location of the cell tower that originates the call. 
We believe that a georouting solution that is based on cell tower 
information would best identify a caller's location and thus enable 
routing the call to a geographically appropriate crisis call center, 
and we seek comment on this belief. If commenters support alternative 
methods of identifying the caller's location, we ask that they specify 
those methods and provide any technical information needed to 
understand how the alternate means of identifying a caller's location 
would function in a georouting solution. We also seek comment on 
whether any means of identifying a caller's location may be impacted by 
the wireless handset that a caller uses to dial 988.
    14. Once the caller's location has been determined, to complete the 
georouting path that location must be matched with a nearby crisis 
center. What geographic boundaries would be applied by each proposed 
solution to do so? For instance, the Intrado Life & Safety solution 
tested during the proof of concept used wire centers as the geographic 
boundary for associating the cell tower that originated the call with 
the nearest call center. We assume that other geographic boundaries 
could similarly be applied, e.g., determining the most geographically 
appropriate call center based on its proximity to the county in which 
the cell tower originating the call is located. We seek comment on the 
geographic boundaries that are utilized by the georouting solutions 
proposed to date, whether those boundaries comport with any 
requirements delineated by SAMHSA, the Lifeline Administrator, and 
state and territory 988 authorities for the network of 988 crisis 
centers, and whether the Commission should mandate the use of one or 
more particular geographic boundaries. Given that there are over 200 
crisis call centers across the United States, we ask that commenters 
address whether certain geographic boundaries are sufficiently granular 
to achieve the goal of connecting callers with local resources during a 
time of crisis and whether there are any geographic boundaries that 
would be overbroad. For instance, would using a state-level boundary be 
too broad where there are multiple crisis centers within a particular 
state? How should we factor in the growing number of crisis centers and 
their impact on the geographic boundary adopted for a georouting 
solution? Our understanding is that the 988 Lifeline's crisis centers 
are independently owned and operated and select their own coverage 
area, which may be based on zip code, area code, county, or state. How 
would a proposed georouting solution address established coverage areas 
for particular crisis centers (e.g., any crisis centers that must 
receive calls from specified counties)? We also seek comment on whether 
any geographic boundaries would be too granular in a manner that 
implicates privacy or other concerns. If different georouting solutions 
propose to use different geographic boundaries (e.g., one solution uses 
wire center while another uses county), should we allow different 
wireless carriers to implement one of multiple technically feasible 
options? Or would permitting wireless carriers to implement a number of 
geographic boundaries impact public interest and the public's 
expectation of routing to a ``geographically appropriate'' crisis call 
center? What other issues, data, and documents should be considered to 
assess how a proposed solution identifies a caller's location and 
matches that location to a geographically appropriate crisis call 
center, and whether that match achieves the public and mental health 
needs served by the 988 Lifeline? Are there any other factors that 
should be considered in determining whether routing to a particular 
crisis center would be appropriate?
    15. Required Routing Data and Transmission. We seek comment on the 
routing data required to effectuate each proposed solution and how it 
would be transmitted. SAMHSA, as the agency with oversight of the 
Lifeline Administrator, must ultimately determine the routing data that 
it will deem acceptable and that it will require the 988 Lifeline's 
systems to be configured to read. What specific data would the 
currently contemplated solutions require wireless carriers to transmit 
when originating calls to the 988 Lifeline (e.g., a Federal Information 
Processing Standard code for a solution utilizing county as a 
geographic boundary, a unique destination code for a solution using 
other parameters, any carrier-specific or other additional digits or 
data points) and how would wireless carriers pass that data through 
with the call? Would the routing information be entered into a 
particular field in the call header of a Session Initiation Protocol 
(SIP) message (e.g., in the Jurisdictional Identification Parameter, P-
Asserted-Identity, or other field)? Would it be necessary to redefine 
an existing SIP header field or define a new one to transmit the data? 
Should a non-standardized field, such as an X-Header, be used to 
contain the data? Does any field used to transmit the routing data need 
to be identified as a mandatory SIP header field that is unchanged as 
the SIP message traverses security gateways from one network to 
another? Should solutions to support georouting avoid changes to the 
SIP header field by the Internet Engineering Task Force to avoid delays 
in deployment? We ask that commenters describe in detail the advantages 
and disadvantages of using a particular call header field to transmit 
any required routing information. We also ask that commenters address 
any privacy or other concerns implicated by the transmission of certain 
routing data with calls to the 988 Lifeline. For instance, what 
specific information would be received by the Lifeline Administrators 
and/or its service providers when the call is routed to the Lifeline's 
centralized routing platform and what, if anything, about the caller 
could be inferred from that data? Does the Lifeline Administrator have 
a preference for receiving certain routing data a certain way as the 
entity responsible for terminating calls to local crisis centers? If 
different wireless carriers wished to utilize different georouting 
solutions, transmitting different routing data via different call 
header fields, could the Lifeline Administrator accommodate that to 
perform the terminating end of each solution? If that were feasible, 
what would be the advantages and disadvantages of a multiple solution 
approach versus requiring all wireless carriers to transmit the same 
data with the same values in the same field?
    16. Technical Limitations. We seek comment on the technological 
limitations of each solution that may prevent a call from being routed 
to a geographically appropriate crisis call center, if any. For 
instance, would a particular solution work if the caller is roaming or 
using Wi-Fi calling? Could the routing information entered into the

[[Page 46345]]

call header be stripped out if the call traverses a non-IP 
interconnection point? Does the impact of one or more intermediate 
providers affect the transmission of the call header to the Lifeline 
Administrator and/or its service providers? Are there different 
technical considerations for routing calls dialed directly to the 988 
Lifeline's toll free access number and calls dialed to the 3-digit 
code? As wireless networks evolve and carriers retire older 
technologies, what impact, if any, would this have on the 
implementation of a georouting solution for the 988 Lifeline? Are there 
any technical limitations of the 988 Lifeline's systems that would 
prevent the Lifeline Administrator from being able to effectively 
implement the terminating end of a particular solution? Does the 
wireless handset that a caller uses to dial 988 present any technical 
limitations or challenges? If a particular wireless call is out-of-
scope for a georouting solution, or the routing data transmitted with a 
call is or becomes unreadable for any reason, what would occur? We 
recognize that SAMHSA and the Lifeline Administrator are best suited to 
ensure that calls are routed properly and ultimately answered by a call 
center. From the perspective of the originating wireless carrier and 
its customers, would an out-of-scope call or call with unreadable 
routing data default to the current routing by area code or be 
redirected to a national back-up? Is it possible that the call would be 
disconnected? While the benefits of improving routing for 988 calls are 
clear, it is paramount that callers be connected with critical, life-
saving help even if the closest crisis center cannot be identified or 
reached. We ask that commenters address the calls that would be 
successfully routed from originating wireless carriers to crisis 
centers pursuant to a proposed solution and those that may not be due 
to technological or other limitations, and explain how any calls that 
fall in the latter group will nonetheless be connected to an 
appropriate 988 crisis center. If there are states or territories that 
will be excluded from any georouting solution due to technical or 
facility limitations, in whole or in part, we ask that commenters 
identify those areas.
    17. Infrastructure and System Considerations. We seek comment on 
any network infrastructure and system changes or upgrades that may be 
required at each step of the call path for wireless carriers to 
successfully implement the proposed georouting solutions. For example, 
would wireless carriers need to develop certain technologies to support 
the proposed solutions? Would any network upgrades or programming 
changes be necessary? Are any specific upgrades necessary to the 988 
Lifeline's routing platform and other facilities and systems that could 
impact the availability of a georouting solution to originating 
wireless carriers and their customers? Would any additional entities 
have to upgrade their infrastructure, facilities, and systems to 
perform their roles in a georouting solution, enable callers to the 988 
Lifeline to benefit from a georouting solution, or to continue 
providing services to the 988 Lifeline after the implementation of a 
georouting solution? Are there any other considerations that impact 
when, whether, and how any needed infrastructure or system changes are 
implemented, such as administrative challenges or contractual issues?
    18. Costs and Benefits. We seek comment on the costs and benefits 
of deploying one or more of the proposed solutions. What specific costs 
would be incurred by the wireless carriers originating calls, any 
necessary intermediaries, and the Lifeline Administrator responsible 
for terminating the calls? Would significant costs need to be incurred 
for network or system changes or upgrades? Are there ways to minimize 
the costs, especially on non-nationwide or small providers? Are there 
contracting costs or costs associated with accessing proprietary 
functions? Do any of the proposed georouting solutions otherwise raise 
compensation issues between any of the participants involved in the 
solutions, including, but not limited to, charges to wireless carriers, 
intermediaries, and/or the Lifeline Administrator to access elements of 
a georouting solution, charges assessed by entities interested in 
marketing a georouting solution to carriers as a service, or 
interconnection fees? If so, how would or should compensation issues be 
addressed?
    19. What are the benefits of utilizing a particular routing 
solution? In requiring calls and texts to 988 to be routed to the 
Lifeline, the Commission found that enabling more Americans to access 
the 988 Lifeline's life-saving suicide prevention and mental health 
crisis services far surpassed the cost of implementation. In this next 
phase of improving routing to 988, we seek comment on the ways in which 
a georouting solution might further reduce suicides and future crises 
beyond our initial estimates. Is there a way of measuring or 
quantifying the impact that a georouting solution would have on the 
outcomes of calls to the 988 Lifeline? Are there any benefits that we 
have not identified that could be realized from a georouting solution? 
Do the public interest benefits of routing callers in crisis to 
geographically appropriate crisis call centers outweigh any potential 
costs? We seek comment on whether there are unique circumstances or 
factors with respect to routing that would change this analysis. We 
also seek comment on the costs and benefits of wireless carriers 
implementing multiple georouting solutions with different geographic 
parameters and technical requirements.
    20. Testing of Proposed Solutions. We seek comment from wireless 
carriers on the testing that has been completed for proposed georouting 
solutions, the results of the tests, and any work that is in progress 
to address any implementation or other issues discovered as a result of 
the tests. The ultimate goal of the coordination between SAMHSA, the 
Lifeline Administrator, and the Commission is to identify one or more 
georouting solutions that are compatible with the 988 Lifeline's 
systems and achieves the policy objectives of connecting callers in 
crisis with local support. We ask that wireless carriers address how 
any testing conducted demonstrates that a proposed solution achieves 
these objectives. How many tests have been conducted to date and with 
which carriers or other entities? What georouting solutions were the 
subjects of those tests and how did participants propose to route calls 
to geographically appropriate crisis centers? What technical 
specifications, assumptions, or other parameters were applied to the 
tests? Were any problems or challenges identified in connection with 
those tests? How have those problems or challenges been resolved or 
what are the proposals for resolving them? Has any testing indicated 
that one solution is technologically superior and/or closer to 
deployment? Has any testing indicated that a particular solution could 
be implemented in the wireless networks of multiple carriers with only 
minor adjustments, if any? Has the testing established that both the 
originating end and the terminating end of the georouting solution are 
viable, or has the testing focused on limited aspects of the solution? 
Will wireless carriers participate in any traffic studies conducted to 
evaluate georouting solutions, and if so, what data would be required 
to conduct those studies, what entities would be required to provide 
the data, and what would stakeholders hope to learn from those studies?
    21. Timeline for Deployment. We seek comment on timelines for the 
deployment of one or more georouting

[[Page 46346]]

solutions. We ask that commenters specify the work that must still be 
completed by wireless carriers, SAMHSA, the Lifeline Administrator, 
and/or any third parties to implement a georouting solution for the 988 
Lifeline and the timeline(s) for the completion of that work. We seek 
comment on whether both the originating functions that need to be 
performed by wireless carriers and the terminating functions that need 
to be performed by the Lifeline Administrator and its service providers 
will be deployed at the same time, and if not, when the two ends of the 
georouting solution in question will be in sync. We ask that commenters 
identify any technical, financial, operational, legal, or other factors 
that may influence the timeframe for deploying a particular solution. 
We also ask commenters to detail whether a particular georouting 
solution will be deployed immediately on a national basis or on an 
incremental basis (e.g., market-by-market), and in the case of the 
latter, the timeline for rolling out the solution to all states and 
territories.
    22. Alternative Georouting Solutions. We seek comment on any 
alternative georouting solutions. We remind commenters, as noted above, 
that the United States continues to face a mental health crisis and 
reiterate our belief that implementing a georouting solution without 
delay to connect callers to 988 with geographically appropriate crisis 
call centers provides better care to those in crisis. Nevertheless, we 
seek comment on alternative georouting solutions that could be 
implemented by wireless carriers, including any concepts that have not 
yet been tested or developed. Are there solutions that build off the 
proof of concept or other proposals referenced herein that have not yet 
been presented to SAMHSA or the Lifeline Administrator? Are there ways 
to leverage existing routing technologies for 988 that have not been 
considered? If so, what are the functional steps and technical 
specifications for such solutions? Would it be more effective and 
efficient for a standards body, such as the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions, to examine the options for a 
georouting solution for the 988 Lifeline and issue standards that could 
be applied by wireless carriers? Should the work from other standards 
bodies, in addition to or in place of the internet Engineering Task 
Force and Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, be used 
to support georouting? Would that expedite or slow the deployment of a 
solution? Would any delay resulting from review by a standards body be 
warranted if it resulted in a more broadly adopted standard? Rather 
than relying on the wireless industry to produce a standard, would it 
be more effective for the Lifeline Administrator and/or its service 
providers to produce written technical specifications for a georouting 
solution that SAMHSA has deemed acceptable for the 988 Lifeline, i.e., 
have the Lifeline Administrator specify the routing information that 
must be transmitted with calls terminated to the 988 Lifeline and the 
way it needs to receive that information, and let the wireless carriers 
figure out how to comply? What information would need to be included in 
those technical specifications for wireless carriers to be able to 
develop a georouting solution that is compatible with the requirements 
set forth by the Lifeline Administrator?
    23. Form of Rules. We seek comment on whether rules requiring 
wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for the 988 
Lifeline should specify one or more technical solutions that must be 
used or more generally require wireless carriers to implement a 
georouting solution within a certain period of time of the Lifeline 
Administrator announcing that it is: (a) prepared to implement the 
terminating function of one or more georouting solutions; and (b) able 
to provide technical specifications needed by wireless carriers to 
implement the originating functions. We seek comment on the merits of 
these two approaches or whether rules adopted by the Commission should 
take a different form.
    24. We also seek comment on the interplay between a rule requiring 
wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for the 988 
Lifeline and the Commission's existing rules. Would our existing rules 
need to be modified, and if so how? For example, while the Commission's 
rules require originating service providers to route calls to the 988 
Lifeline's current toll free access number, would a particular 
georouting solution require us to modify our rules to allow calls to be 
routed directly to the Lifeline's individual crisis call centers? We 
observe that the Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau granted a 
waiver to allow covered text providers to route covered 988 text 
messages to the 988 Lifeline using the short code protocol without 
translation to the Lifeline's current toll free access number, 1-800-
273-8255 (TALK). Would a rule change be necessary for us to require 
wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution?
    25. Non-Wireless Calls. As explained above, this FNPRM focuses on 
georouting solutions for wireless calls to the 988 Lifeline because of 
the established scenarios in which a caller's location may differ from 
the area code associated with the wireless phone, and the fact that the 
majority of calls placed to the 988 Lifeline are from wireless devices. 
We nevertheless invite comment on whether the 988 Lifeline's current 
method of routing calls by area code creates challenges for callers 
using other technologies, including but not limited to different 
variations of Voice over internet-Protocol (VoIP) technology. If so, 
have any georouting solutions been proposed for such calls? Are any 
unique challenges presented by the relevant technologies? We ask that 
commenters responding to this inquiry provide the same information and 
documents requested herein with respect to georouting solutions for 
wireless calls.
    26. Texts to 988. Texting is an important mode of communication to 
the 988 Lifeline and has increasingly become the preferred means of 
communicating among certain demographic groups, many of whom are at 
risk for mental health crises. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, 
texts are required to be routed to the 988 Lifeline's ten-digit toll 
free access number like voice calls. We seek comment on the impact of 
the georouting solutions discussed above on texting to 988 and whether 
additional improvements are needed to route texts to geographically 
appropriate 988 crisis centers. In general, what are the challenges for 
implementing a georouting solution for texts to 988 and how do wireless 
carriers and other stakeholders propose to address those challenges? 
Would all technologies used to send texts be compatible with a 
particular georouting solution? What are the costs of implementing a 
georouting solution for texts to the 988 Lifeline, including any 
network infrastructure or system changes or upgrades necessary to 
implement a solution? What are the benefits of implementing a 
georouting solution for texts, and do they outweigh the costs? How long 
would it take to develop and deploy a georouting solution for texts? We 
ask that commenters responding to these inquiries provide the same 
technical, logistical, operational, economic, and practical information 
requested above for the georouting of voice calls to 988, and identify 
any relevant considerations that are unique to georouting texts, as 
opposed to calls, to 988.

[[Page 46347]]

Legal Authority

    27. We tentatively conclude that we have the authority to adopt 
rules requiring wireless carriers to implement one or more georouting 
solutions for calls to the 988 Lifeline under Title II and Title III of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), and section 104 of 
the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act 
(CVAA), and we seek comment on this proposal. In particular, we seek 
comment on whether and to what extent the Commission's Title III 
authority over wireless carriers confers authority for what we propose 
and seek comment on in this FNPRM, including sections 301, 303, 307, 
309, and 316. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, Title III 
grants the Commission a ``comprehensive mandate'' regarding regulation 
of spectrum usage, and courts have routinely found that Title III 
provides the Commission with ``broad authority to manage spectrum . . . 
in the public interest.'' As we explain above, we believe that 
requiring wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for the 
988 Lifeline will confer significant public interest benefits by 
connecting those experiencing a mental health crisis with local public 
safety and counseling resources that could save lives. We seek comment 
on this assessment.
    28. We also seek comment on whether and to what extent our 
numbering authority under section 251(e) of the Act provides a source 
of authority for what we propose and seek comment on in this FNPRM. 
Section 251(e)(1) gives the Commission ``exclusive jurisdiction over 
those portions of the North American Numbering Plan that pertain to the 
United States.'' The Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over numbering 
policy enables the Commission to act flexibly and expeditiously on 
important numbering matters, which pursuant to section 251(e)(4) of the 
Act, includes the designation of 988 as the universal telephone number 
for the 988 Lifeline. We seek comment on whether this authority would 
extend to adopting rules requiring wireless carriers to route calls to 
the 988 Lifeline in a manner that would help to ensure that all 
Americans can receive efficient, swift access to, and reap the benefits 
of, critical suicide prevention and crisis services offered through the 
988 Lifeline.
    29. We seek comment on any other sources of authority that would 
authorize the Commission to require wireless carriers to implement a 
georouting solution for calls to the 988 Lifeline, including whether 
the Commission could invoke its ancillary authority. To exercise 
ancillary jurisdiction ``two conditions [must be] satisfied: (1) the 
Commission's general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the 
Communications Act] covers the regulated subject and (2) the 
regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective 
performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities.'' Routing 
calls to the 988 Lifeline involves communications by wire or radio and 
the use of equipment for purposes of facilitating transmission by wire 
or radio. The Commission previously found that imposing outage 
reporting requirements on covered 988 service providers was reasonably 
ancillary to our responsibility to ensure that the 988 Lifeline 
operates effectively. We believe that requiring the use of a georouting 
solution for the 988 Lifeline is necessary to carry out our 
responsibility for the proper functioning of the 988 Lifeline services 
under section 251(e)(4), and seek comment on whether doing so falls 
within the scope of the Commission's ancillary authority.
    30. Digital Equity. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, 
persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, 
and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and 
adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, invites 
comments on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) 
that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as 
well as the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in 
the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    32. The FNPRM seeks to facilitate access to critical suicide 
prevention and crisis services by improving routing of wireless calls 
to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (988 Lifeline). The 988 Lifeline 
is currently designed to route wireless calls to crisis centers based 
on a caller's area code and exchange. As a result, however, the 988 
Lifeline may not route a wireless call to a crisis center nearest to 
the caller's physical location. This is particularly concerning given 
the increased prevalence of calls to the 988 Lifeline originating from 
wireless phones and the importance of providing help-seekers access to 
local resources.
    33. The FNPRM proposes to adopt a rule that would require wireless 
carriers to implement one or more georouting solutions for calls to the 
988 Lifeline, and seeks comment to thoroughly and transparently 
consider georouting solutions that could fall within the scope of that 
mandate and to identify any remaining work to implement a georouting 
solution. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether mandating the use of one 
or more georouting solutions by wireless carriers originating calls to 
the 988 Lifeline will achieve the benefits of enhancing access to 
critical support and resources. The FNPRM inquires about the viability 
of any potential georouting solutions proposed to date, including those 
proposed to SAMHSA and the Lifeline Administrator, and also seeks 
comment on any alternative georouting solutions. The Commission 
believes that a georouting solution based on cell tower information 
would best identify a caller's location and thus enable routing the 
call to a geographically appropriate crisis call center. The FNPRM 
seeks comment on this belief and on any other alternatives for 
identifying a caller's location and correlating that location with a 
geographically appropriate crisis call center. The FNPRM also seeks 
comment on the geographic boundaries used for any proposed georouting 
solution and asks whether the Commission should mandate the use of one 
or more particular geographic boundaries. For any georouting solutions, 
the FNPRM inquires about the technical specifications and limitations, 
required routing data and transmission methods, necessary 
infrastructure and system changes or upgrades, testing requirements, 
costs and benefits, and timelines for deployment. Additionally, the 
FNPRM seeks comment on any routing challenges and potential georouting 
solutions for non-wireless

[[Page 46348]]

calls. The FNPRM also seeks comment on the impact of georouting 
solutions on texting to the 988 Lifeline and asks whether additional 
improvements are needed to route texts to geographically appropriate 
988 crisis centers. Lastly, the FNPRM requests comment on the form of 
rules requiring wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution 
for the 988 Lifeline and on the Commission's authority to adopt such 
rules.

Legal Basis

    34. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
this FNPRM is contained in sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 218, 251(e), 
301, 303, 307, 309(a), 316, 332, and 403 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the 
FNPRM seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small-business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    36. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.
    37. 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 2022, there were 
approximately 530,109 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.
    38. 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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    39. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and 
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments 
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers.
    40. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities
    41. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    42. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal

[[Page 46349]]

Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 
providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service 
providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small 
entities.
    43. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs). Neither 
the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local 
exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    44. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    45. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local 
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    46. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll 
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a 
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for 
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    47. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to 
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not 
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service 
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, 
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    48. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these service 
providers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that

[[Page 46350]]

reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
    49. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications 
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. 
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of 
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to 
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business 
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    50. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in 
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in 
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
    51. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    52. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small 
business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in 
the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and 
specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    53. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    54. 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 small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small. 
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this 
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with 
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with 
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of firms in the industry are small.
    55. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standard 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. Based 
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of 
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, 
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are 
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are 
small.
    56. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of 
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any 
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 498,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator. Based on industry data, 
only six cable system operators have more than 498,000 subscribers. 
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system 
operators are small under this size standard. We note however, that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on

[[Page 46351]]

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.
    57. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    58. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
    59. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
    60. 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 small business size standard for this 
industry classifies entities having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 729 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 673 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    61. 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 small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 
annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 indicate that 7,842 firms in this industry operated for 
the entire year. Of this number 7,226 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of firms 
in this industry are small.

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

    62. The RFA requires Federal agencies to describe the impact of 
proposed rules on small entities. The FNPRM proposes to adopt a rule 
that would require small and other wireless carriers to implement one 
or more georouting solutions for calls to the 988 Lifeline. The 
Commission believes that a georouting solution based on cell tower 
information would best identify a caller's location to enable routing 
to a geographically appropriate crisis call center and seeks comment on 
this conclusion. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should mandate the use of one or more particular geographic boundaries. 
The FNPRM also seeks comment on routing challenges and potential 
georouting solutions for non-wireless calls and asks whether additional 
improvements are needed to route texts to geographically appropriate 
988 crisis centers. Additionally, the FNPRM seeks comment on a number 
of aspects related to implementing any georouting solutions, including 
technical specifications and limitations, required routing data and 
transmission methods, necessary infrastructure and system changes or 
upgrades, testing requirements, timelines for deployment, and the 
Commission expects that small entities will incur costs to implement 
these changes. At this time the Commission does not have sufficient 
cost information to quantify compliance costs for small entities. 
However, we expect the comments received in response to the FNPRM to 
include information which should help the Commission further analyze 
the economic impact of various proposals on small entities, including 
but not limited to costs for professional services, before adopting 
final rules.

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

    63. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that could minimize impacts to small entities that it has 
considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the 
following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of 
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources

[[Page 46352]]

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.''
    64. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment from all entities, 
including small entities, on the effect of deploying a georouting 
solution for wireless calls to the 988 Lifeline, and on alternative 
ways of implementing a georouting solution, including concepts that 
have yet to be tested or developed. For example, the FNPRM seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits of deploying a georouting solution 
for wireless calls to the 988 Lifeline. This includes whether rules 
requiring wireless carriers to implement a georouting solution for the 
988 Lifeline should specify one or more technical solutions that must 
be used or more generally require wireless carriers to implement a 
georouting solution within a certain period of time of the Lifeline 
Administrator announcing that it is: (a) prepared to implement the 
terminating function of one or more georouting solutions; and (b) able 
to provide technical specifications needed by wireless carriers to 
implement the originating functions. Additionally, the FNPRM invites 
stakeholders to comment on whether georouting solutions that have been 
developed to date by major carriers would be viable for smaller 
carriers, and any distinctions that need to be considered for smaller 
carriers when mandating the use of a georouting solution for the 988 
Lifeline. The FNPRM also inquires whether there are any ways to 
minimize costs incurred for network or system changes or upgrades, 
particularly for small providers. Small entities are encouraged to 
bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have 
with the alternatives proposed in the FNPRM. We expect to take into 
account the economic impact on small entities, as identified in 
comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this IRFA, in reaching our 
final conclusions and promulgating rules in this proceeding.

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

    65. None.

Ordering Clauses

    66. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 
201, 218, 251(e), 301, 303, 307, 309(a), 316, 332, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
201, 218, 251(e), 301, 303, 307, 309(a), 316, 332, and 403, that this 
FNPRM is adopted.
    67. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the FNPRM 
on or before 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, and 
reply comments on or before 60 days following publication in the 
Federal Register.
    68. It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, 
Reference Information Center shall send a copy of this FNPRM, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-11761 Filed 5-28-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P