Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

the text to either the existing Lifeline number or the existing short code for Veterans depending on the response?
Alternatively, would it be feasible to immediately prompt individuals texting to 988 to reply with the number 1 or Vet to be routed to the Veterans Crisis Line, similar to the experience for voice callers? Are other prompts preferable?
We seek comment on possible solutions to ensure that texts are routed to the proper counseling services via the Lifeline or the Veterans Crisis Line, including input on technical feasibility, ways to minimize consumer confusion, and implementation costs. Should other text or chat services be integrated into 988 text routing, and if so, how?
27. We seek comment on whether we should require covered text providers to enable text-to-988 messages to include location information. As required by the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, the Bureau will report to Congress on the costs and feasibility of providing location information with 988
calls on April 17, 2021. In our preliminary view, given that we have not adopted a location mandate in the context of calls to 988, we believe it would be premature to adopt a mandate here, and we seek comment on this view. Does someone who sends a text message to 988 expect that their location will be transmitted to the Lifeline? If consumers generally are aware that calls and texts to 911 include their location, would the same expectation apply to texts to 988? Would including location information deter at-risk individuals from texting to 988? We seek comment on any complications inherent in this plan and on ways for covered text providers to work with SAMHSA and the VA to limit misrouting of texts.
3. Implementation Timeframe for Textto-988
28. Uniform Nationwide Deadline. We seek comment on an appropriate implementation timeframe for requiring covered text providers to support texting to 988 on a nationwide basis. We preliminarily propose adopting a uniform nationwide deadline for implementation for all covered text providers and for all covered 988 text messages, as determined by the Bureau.
In the 988 Report and Order, the Commission determined that the rollout of 988 will be most effective if it set a single implementation deadline so that stakeholders can clearly and consistently communicate to the American public when 988 will be universally available. We preliminarily believe that the same holds true here, and we seek comment on this view. Are there other benefits to a uniform
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:12 Jun 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

nationwide implementation deadline?
What drawbacks, if any, exist?
29. Although we propose adopting a uniform nationwide deadline, we seek comment on whether we should adopt any extensions or exemptions for certain classes of providers or categories of text messages. Should we adopt any extensions or exemptions for smaller, rural, or regional covered text providers? If so, under what circumstances would such exemptions be appropriate? Are there unique technical considerations that necessitate different implementation timelines for certain covered text providers? If so, what are they and why? Are there any other considerations, such as any existing contractual obligations between our federal partners and other entities, that we should take into account in setting a deadline or deadlines?
30. Appropriate Deadline. We observe that CTIA and other commenters have previously argued that the Commission should not mandate text-to-988 before the Lifeline is capable of receiving and responding to texts, in part because the Lifelines readiness to receive and respond to text messages is crucial to implementing text-to-988 successfully.
We seek comment on this assertion. We also seek comment on CTIAs proposal to require covered text providers to deliver text-to-988 to the Lifeline by July 16, 2022, or six months after the Lifeline demonstrates its readiness to accept text messages, whichever is later. Is the Lifelines pilot program sufficient to demonstrate that it is ready to accept text messages? If not, how should we determine that the Lifeline has demonstrated readiness to accept text messages, both from a technical and operational standpoint? How should we take into account the capabilities of the Veterans Crisis Line in establishing a deadline? Understanding that the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line successfully accepting and responding to text messages to 988 will require coordination between several stakeholders, we emphasize that the Commission will continue to coordinate closely with our federal partners, SAMHSA and the VA, in their efforts to enable crisis centers to respond to text messages to 988 and establish a reasonable implementation timeframe for text-to-988. We reiterate that the Commission does not wish to determine for SAMHSA how it allocates the Lifelines resources, nor do we have the authority to require the Lifeline and its crisis centers to be capable of receiving and responding to text messages to 988.
31. We seek comment on whether the Commission should require all covered text providers to support text-to-988 by
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

31409

July 16, 2022, the same implementation deadline for telecommunications carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and one-way VoIP providers to support voice calls to 988. Is this technically, economically and operationally feasible? Are there benefits to requiring a uniform implementation timeline for all voice and text communications to 988? We observe that some covered text providers have already implemented voice calling to 988. For those providers, will requiring covered text providers to implement text-to-988 on the same timeline as voice calling to 988
create any efficiencies, such as reducing fixed costs? Is there an expectation that once 988 is deployed nationwide for voice communications that texting to 988 will be similarly available? Will a uniform implementation deadline discourage covered text providers from potentially supporting text to 988 before July 16, 2022? Are there other potential benefits or drawbacks to uniform implementation deadlines for providers supporting voice calling and texting to 988?
32. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should separate the timeline for implementing text-to-988
from the implementation timeline for voice-to-988. Is a phased-in approach preferable? Would it be beneficial to consider balance of telecommunications activation needs and organizational response needs by SAMHSA and the VA? Would it be less burdensome on providers working to implement 988 for voice calls in accordance with the 988
Report and Order? Would a phased-in implementation timeline create consumer confusion regarding the availability of texting to 988? If phasedin implementation deadlines would create consumer confusion, would requiring certain covered text providers to implement text-to-988 more quickly minimize consumer confusion? For example, if a covered text provider has already implemented voice calling to 988 and is advertising the availability of 988 to its customers, should the provider be required to implement textto-988 before other covered text providers? Are there other risks associated with a phased-in approach to an implementation timeline for voice and text communications to 988 as compared to uniform implementation timeline? What, if any, phased-in deadlines should the Commission consider?
33. We also seek comment on whether we should we adopt the same timeline for all covered text providers, regardless of the text messaging technology they use. Are there other preparedness concerns that we should take into
E:FRFM11JNP3.SGM

11JNP3