Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules similar exemption for legacy devices under any text-to-988 requirements we may adopt? Have circumstances changed in the past seven years such that we should adopt a different approach here?

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

5. Cost Recovery 41. Consistent with the Commissions decision in the 988 Report and Order, we propose to require that all covered text providers bear their own costs to implement text-to-988 capability to the Lifeline 10-digit number. As with call routing to 988, we do not anticipate any shared industry costs are necessary to implement text-to-988, in contrast to previous non-988 numbering proceedings where the Commission established a cost recovery mechanism.
As proposed, costs to support text-to988 would be borne by each provider, specific to the solutions each has adopted to route texts to 988 ultimately to the Lifelines current toll free access number, presently 18002738255
TALK. We seek comment on this proposal.
42. We believe this approach promotes efficiency in implementation and avoids unnecessary administrative costs. Section 251e2 of the Act states that the cost of establishing telecommunications numbering administration arrangements and number portability shall be borne by all telecommunications carriers on a competitively neutral basis. The Commission typically applies cost recovery mechanisms in situations involving some type of numbering administration arrangement, such as when the Commission hires a third party to develop a database for industry use, to ensure that the statutory cost neutrality requirements are met. Here, as with implementation of voice calls to 988, circumstances do not require establishment of a numbering administration arrangement as there will not be shared costs. Therefore, we believe the section 251e2
requirements do not apply.
Furthermore, even if section 251e2
applies, we believe it is satisfied if we require each provider to bear its own costs because each providers costs will be proportional to the size and quality of its network. We seek comment on this analysis.
6. Bounce-Back Messages 43. We seek comment on whether and in what circumstances to require covered text providers to send automatic bounce-back messages where text-to-988 service is unavailable.
Throughout the ongoing roll-out of textto-911 services across the U.S., the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:12 Jun 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

Commission has required covered text providers to send an automatic reply, or bounce-back, text message when a consumer attempts to send a text message to a PSAP by means of the 3digit code 911 and the covered text provider cannot deliver the text because 1 the consumer is located in an area where text-to-911 is not available, or 2
the covered text provider either does not support text-to-911 generally or does not support it in the particular area at the time of the consumers attempted text.
Unlike in the text-to-911 context, where availability varies by geography and is based on whether the local PSAP can receive texts, our proposals herein would require covered text providers to support nationwide texting to the Lifeline via the 988 3-digit code on a uniform nationwide deadline. If we were to adopt our proposal, should we nonetheless require bounce-back messages? If so, when and under what circumstances? Should we require covered text providers to make available bounce-back messages sooner than we require implementation of text-to-988?
Would requiring bounce-back messages be appropriate if we adopt a uniform nationwide deadline for text-to-988
capability later than July 16, 2022the uniform nationwide deadline for covered providers to support calls to 988? Would requiring bounce-back messages be appropriate if we adopt exemptions or extensions for some providers?
44. We seek comment on the potential benefits and costs of a bounce-back requirement. In the text-to-911 context, the Commission determined that there is a clear benefit and present need for persons who attempt to send emergency text messages to know immediately if their text cannot be delivered to the proper authorities, noting that feedback where text-to-911 is not available may be lifesaving by directing a person to seek out an alternative means of communicating with emergency services. Is that the case here as well? Because some individuals with disabilities may rely exclusively on texting for communicating, are there unique benefits of a bounce-back requirement for these individuals? Since the Commission designated 988 as the 3-digit dialing code to access the Lifeline, efforts have been underway to educate the public about using this 3digit code to reach help by telephone in times of mental health crisis, including its availability for routing voice calls to the Lifeline by July 16, 2022. In the absence of a bounce-back, might such advertising confuse the public about the availability of texting to 988? Would an
PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

31411

automated bounce-back help to prevent such confusion? Are there other advantages to requiring covered text providers to send bounce-back messages for attempts to text 988 where service is unavailable? Are any providers included under the proposed covered text providers definition currently sending bounce-back messages to texts sent to 988?
45. What are the costs of requiring a bounce-back message? What work or upgrades would be necessary for text service providers to implement an automatic bounce-back reply? Given that covered text providers must provide a bounce-back in circumstances in which text-to-911 is unavailable, would adding a comparable bounceback message for 988 be easier than if that existing infrastructure were not in place? Would requiring text service providers to build bounce-back capabilities deter resources from more rapid deployment of text-to-988?
46. We seek comment on how requiring bounce-back messages may impact the publics ability to seek help from the Lifeline in times of mental crisis. What are the potential benefits to receiving an automatic bounce-back message when text-to-988 service is unavailable? Are there any drawbacks to the public of requiring covered text providers to send bounce-back messages when text-to-988 is not available? One commenter contends that if at-risk texters receive a bounce-back message regarding the unavailability of services, the risks of disengagement and adverse outcomes increase. Do commenters agree with the assessment that an automatic bounce-back message will negatively impact individuals seeking help during a crisis? Would a bounceback message have the effect of making the sender more discouraged, such that it that could increase, not decrease, the likelihood of suicide? Alternatively, if there is no automatic reply, and the sender is left wondering whether the Lifeline received the text message, would that uncertainty also increase senders likelihood of suicide? We seek comment on whether the benefits of receiving an automatic bounce-back message outweigh the potential risk of disengagement.
47. If we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we seek comment on the specific requirement we should adopt.
To align with the scope of the proposed outer bound text-to-988 capability requirements, we propose that if we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we would require all covered text providers to provide automatic bounce-back messages to text messages, as defined by our outer bound
E:FRFM11JNP3.SGM

11JNP3