Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3

31412

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 111 / Friday, June 11, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposal herein, sent to 988 where textto-988 service is unavailable. We seek comment on this approach. Are there unique considerations for different technologies within the outer bound scope of text message that we should consider under our bounce-back message proposal, including such impact on technical implementation or costs? Should we consider requiring covered text providers to send automatic bounce-back messages in reply to messages outside the scope of the outer bound definition? Are there additional text or chat service providers that offer services beyond the proposed outer bound definition that we should include within the scope of our proposed bounce-back requirement?
Should we limit any bounce-back requirement to covered text providers, as proposed, or should the requirement sweep more broadly? CTIA asserts that text-to-988 implementation should be consistent with existing SMS
capabilities. Should any bounce-back requirement we may explore likewise remain consistent with SMS? Is sending a bounce-back message in response to texts to 988 feasible on legacy SMS
systems? We seek comment on the impact including other text or chat service providers, or other forms of messages, may have on the implementation costs, technical feasibility, and timeframe for our proposed bounce-back message requirements.
48. Should we adopt a bounce-back requirement, we seek comment on whether and how to expand on the circumstances in which a covered text provider must provide a bounce-back message due to unavailability of text-to988. In the text-to-911 context, when a customer is roaming away from his or her home network i.e., the network of the customers mobile carrier, the CMRS provider operating the customers home network is nonetheless responsible for providing a bounce-back message when required; and the provider operating the network on which the customer is roaming must not impede the bounce-back response by the home network operator. We seek comment on adopting a similar requirement here. Additionally, we anticipate that there may be circumstances in which the Lifeline is unable to receive and respond to texts, including where demand may exceed its capacity to respond. In instances amounting essentially to a busy signal for text delivery, are covered text providers capable of determining that the text cannot be delivered to 988?
Would covered text providers be able to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:12 Jun 10, 2021

Jkt 253001

determine if a text to 988 is undeliverable due to the Lifelines inability, whether temporary or sustained, to receive and respond to the texts? Or should we establish a mechanism whereby the Lifeline may inform providers of a temporary suspension of text-to-988 service, and should the bounce-back requirement apply until the suspension is lifted?
Lastly, we seek comment on considerations, either within the control of the covered text provider or the Lifelines administrators, in which a message from an individual in crisis attempting to reach 988 may not be delivered, and therefore may benefit from receipt of a bounce-back message directing the individual to contact 988
by alternative means. Are there additional circumstances where we should require covered text providers to send bounce-back messages in response to 988 texts?
49. If we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we propose to adopt the same exceptions to our bounce-back notification requirement for text-to-988
as currently exist for the Commissions text-to-911 rules. If we adopt that same approach, a covered text provider would not be required to provide an automatic bounce-back message when: 1
Transmission of the text message is not controlled by the provider; 2 a consumer is attempting to text 988, through a text messaging application that requires CMRS service, from a nonservice initialized handset; 3 the textto-988 message cannot be delivered due to a failure in the Lifelines routing network that has not been reported to the provider; or 4 a consumer is attempting to text 988 through a device that is incapable of sending texts via 3digit codes, provided that the software for the device cannot be upgraded over the air to allow text-to-988. We seek comment on this approach. Are there other situations where a covered text provider should not be required to send bounce-back messages to consumers attempting to text to 988? Furthermore, we seek comment on the circumstances in which the provider of a pre-installed or downloaded interconnected text application would be considered to have control over the transmission of text messages for the purposes of any requirements we adopt. If a user or third party modifies or manipulates the application after it is installed or downloaded so that it no longer supports bounce-back messaging, should the application provider be presumed not to have control?
50. If we adopt a bounce-back requirement, should we specify or provide guidance regarding the content
PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

of the bounce-back message, and if so, what should we specify or encourage?
Similar to automatic messages sent in response to undeliverable texts to 911, we propose that any bounce-back messages to consumers attempting to text 988 would not require all covered text providers to use identical wording for their automatic responses. Rather, if we were to adopt a bounce-back requirement, we propose that a covered text provider would be deemed to have met its obligation so long as the bounceback message to 988 includes, at a minimum, two essential points of information: 1 That text-to-988 is not available; and 2 identify other means to reach the Lifeline, such as by telephone. We seek comment on this approach and on alternatives. We seek comment on what role our federal partners and non-governmental mental health organizations could play in developing best practices regarding the content of messages.
7. Role of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs 51. Although the Commission has an important role to play in expanding access to crisis counseling through its implementation of 988, SAMHSA and the VA are ultimately responsible for ensuring the continued success of these lifesaving resources. As such, we propose to direct the Bureau to continue to coordinate the implementation of 988
with SAMHSA and the VA, including any issues pertaining to the delivery of text messages to 988.
52. We seek comment on this proposal. How we can best support the work of our federal partners in administering the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line? We recognize that many commenters have stressed the importance of ensuring adequate funding and staffing for the Lifeline and the Veterans Crisis Line over the course of this proceeding. Although these issues are beyond our jurisdiction, are there unique considerations pertaining to staffing, funding, or the availability of other resources at the Lifeline or Veterans Crisis Line that we should be aware of as we consider adopting rules to require the delivery of text messages to 988? How should we account for the possibility that text-to-988 may be popular and increase demands on the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line? What resources will be needed for the Lifeline and Veterans Crisis Line to ensure that text-to-988 is a success? How should we account for our federal partners budget cycles? We are cognizant of the potential burdens our proposals may impose upon our federal partners,
E:FRFM11JNP3.SGM

11JNP3